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

Thanks, David.



>From the TPAC notes:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Nov/0091.html





Under Meeting Summary, agenda item "3. Resource Priorities":

"Additionally, there were concerns with postpone. The WG agreed to scope the spec back to lazyload and work from there."


From: David Newton [mailto:david@davidnewton.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:21 PM
To: Philippe Le Hegaret
Cc: public-web-perf
Subject: Re: {minutes} 2014-04-26 Web Performance Working Group: Resource Priorities, HRT2, Beacon, etc.

Hello,

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

Thanks,
Dave