W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > March 2014

Re: {minutes} 2014-04-26 Web Performance Working Group: Resource Priorities, HRT2, Beacon, etc.

From: David Newton <david@davidnewton.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:20:33 -0400
Cc: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <079B0FC5-2CB2-4B88-9B66-2B4692DAD94F@davidnewton.ca>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

On Mar 26, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> resource priorities
>   Tobin: last week, we were wondering if the HTML WG was still
>   up-to-date with resource priorities. talked to Travis.
>   <tobint>
>   [10]http://www.w3.org/2014/03/20-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
>     [10] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/20-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
>   Tobin: also joined the conference call for the html wg
>   ... and bring them in sync
>   ... they did tell us that we can bring things in the spec, once
>   we're ready
>   ... two items
>   ... wanted to scope down resource priorities
>   ... ie remove postpone for now
>   ... until we have a good handle on the rest
>   ... is there something we still want to do?
>   plh: seems so, from the list
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/open
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/open
>   <scribe> ACTION: Tobin to remove postpone from Resource
>   Priorities [recorded in
>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2014/03/26-webperf-minutes.html#action01]

I’m not seeing where on the list this is the case. The last I see on the list is the Telecon minutes #127:

> Meeting Summary:
> 1.       Resource Priorities
> There was a discussion about decision to remove “postpone” from resource priorities last week. We had agreed that a decision was made at TPAC to remove postpone for now, and reconsider later. However, looking at the minutes from TPAC, plh was uncertain that this was the case.  TobinT will follow up with Jatinder Mann and Jason Weber for clarity.

…where there is doubt that this was actually decided at TPAC. I emailed earlier about this looking for clarification, since it doesn’t look (to me) that this was the decision at TPAC:

> Thank you Philippe! As far as I can tell, there was concern about a `postpone` CSS property, but no clear reason to remove the `postpone` attribute. Am I reading this wrong? Are there good reasons for dropping the attribute?

I’m not sure where the decision to remove the postpone attribute happened, nor what the reasons for removing it were. If somebody could point me towards some discussion behind this, it would be much appreciated.

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 20:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:38 UTC