[minutes] Web Performance WG Teleconference #? 2014-02-12

Available at

Text version:
              Web Performance Working Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-webperf-irc


          Plh, JatinderMann, TobinTitus, rbarnes, Alois,
          AaronHeady, Ilya





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Resource Priorities
         2. [5]Beacon
         3. [6]High Resolution Time Level 2
         4. [7]Extensive Specs
         5. [8]Network Error Logging
         6. [9]Older Specs
         7. [10]Networking Hints
         8. [11]Workshop
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

Resource Priorities

   Jatinder: Tobin will be making spec updates to Resource
   Priorities based on our TPAC action items. We should have
   updates in the next two week.


   Jatinder: Looks like there are a few remaining action items on
   the Beacon spec, but otherwise we should be ready to take
   Beacon to last call.

   Rbarnes: Looks like we're almost done on the remaining issues.

   Jatinder: How about we fix the remaining issues within this
   week and aim to go to LAst Call in two weeks.

   Rbarnes: I'm okay with going to last call.


     [13] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=936340

   Plh: Works for me.

   Jatinder: Tobin and I will follow up with the open feedback
   this week.

   Alois: We were looking at the beacon API, and looks like some
   of the error codes may need clarification. E.g., if you get a
   false, you'll have to strip out beacons or send multiple

   Richard: We don't currently have a limit. We should look into

   Jatinder: My expectations was that we would have a very large
   limit (yet to be determined), and the API would return false.
   So I don't expect most analytics to ever hit the limit.

   Plh: I've heard feedback that some folks plan to send beacons
   as a background upload technique. There's another feedback to
   use this as a replacement for ping.

   <igrigorik> mozilla bug:

     [14] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=822480

   Jatinder: I recommend we table this discussion until after we
   have telemetry if to show what the right limit should be. Let's
   track this as an open issue in the last call period.

   Plh: Agreed

High Resolution Time Level 2

   Plh:Should we move HRT L2 to LC?

   Jatinder:There is only one piece of open feedback. There was
   feedback on specifying that Event should use
   DOMHighResTimeStamp. The DOM4 editor suggested this should be
   specified in the HRT L2 spec. I would expect that HRT L2
   defines the DOMHighResTimeStamp, but others should use it. I am
   open to making the change if that’s what we want.

   Plh:Let me review the change and follow up.

Extensive Specs

   Jatinder:Thoughts on Anne’s feedback on our extension specs?

   Plh:I read it as we should add hooks in the main spec that
   we’re trying to extend.

   Jatinder:Like how HTML has a processing model hook that says
   run Page Visibility steps and points to the Page Visibility


   Jatinder:I’d love to get the recommendation on how we should
   do extension specs.

   Plh:I’ll follow up.

Network Error Logging

   Jatinder:I think we need to close on whether providing just the
   generics errors, like DNS error, is useful enough on its own?
   If so, we can at least spec that behavior pending a security
   review where we consider if we can do more specific error

   Aaron:From a Bing point of view, we’re happy with just the
   generic data. It would be more actionable to get the actual
   error code, but just learning that an error occurs is already
   useful information that normally may take longer to obtain.

   Jatinder:Let’s talk to Arvind and see if we can make the
   change to move to generic error codes for now.

   Plh:I talked to a privacy group within the W3C that are
   interesting in reviewing the error codes. Who wants to present
   to them?

   Jatinder:Arvind and I would probably be interested.

   Plh:I’ll setup the call.

   Plh:Also, what do we think of Anne’s feedback to specify
   Resource Error Logging in Resource Timing L2?

   Jatinder:All of the timing specs just add new objects that are
   placed on the same timeline. I guess the real question is do
   developers want to look at all resources at the same time,
   including successful and failed, or at the two lists

   Alois:We’d like to look at both.

   Jatinder:I think its fine to add error data to Resource Timing.
   Today we only get successful Resources, adding the error
   Resources shouldn’t be a problem. We should run this by
   Arvind as well, see where he stands.

Older Specs

   Plh:What is the status for some of our older specs. Namely,
   what are we doing on Resource Timing?

   Jatinder:Spec is at CR, we still need to review the test cases.
   But I worry that spec won’t be able to advance until both IE
   and Chrome implement the new event we added to the spec. Do we
   know if Firefox is starting an implementation?

   RBarnes:I believe there is a bug, but not sure about the

   Jatinder:I think we need a renewed push to complete the test
   cases and complete our Resource Timing implementation. On the
   IE side, Tobin will be helping put some effort here.

Networking Hints

   Ilya:I wanted to understand if anyone has feedback on the
   networking hints spec? I believe Mozilla has started to give
   some feedback.

   Jatinder:I’d love to get the feedback on the mailing list.
   Tobin has started to look at this proposal and will give some
   feedback. I think that in the next few weeks if we feel that
   this is going to be something we want to pursue, we should move
   it to a spec and raise issues on the spec.

   Jatinder:I recall that Arvind last year felt that prerender
   algorithm specifics should be left to the user agent and not be
   specified. Your proposal seems to change that position for
   prerender. Would love to see what Arvind thinks about these


   Plh:Head's up that this is still on my list to determine. I
   have thread with Souders on the dates.

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 22:37:19 UTC