W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2015

[minutes] 20150422 Web Performance

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:54:56 -0400
Message-ID: <553FF3A0.5080404@w3.org>
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Available at

       Web Performance Working Group Teleconference

22 Apr 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/22-webperf-irc


           +, yoav, Plh, +657888aabb, ilya, marcos,
           [Microsoft], +1.310.310.aacc, Michael





      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Web Performance Group charter
          2. [5]new draft for Performance Observer
      * [6]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 22 April 2015


       [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-navigation-timing-2-20150422/

Web Performance Group charter

    Todd: talked to Adrian before this call. as long as the charter
    covers the scope, without broadening it too much.
    ... as long as we have general deliverables, we should be fine
    ... CPU and memory is an example
    ... "solve the pb of understanding CPU and memory on the web


       [8] https://github.com/w3c/charter-webperf/pull/4


       [9] https://rawgit.com/toddreifsteck/charter-webperf/2015draft/index.html

    Todd: TODO: add remaining information, sort by priority.


      [10] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oCfLli-Llm1GjiGcoXprY1eLwK-C6OPRH2XP8zHrtlg/edit

    Ilya: on deliverables: Performance Observer is part of
    Timeline. no need to call it out

    "The working group will deliver updated versions of the


    Timing control for script-based animations

    An interoperable and efficient means for web page authors to
    write script-based animations where the user agent is in
    control of limiting the update rate of the animation.



      [11] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#the-window-object


      [12] http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/browsers.html#the-window-object

    Ilya: should we remove requestAnimationFrame from our list?
    ... let's have it as an open issue for now
    ... should we move that spec in a separate section, moving into
    the html spec, but we need to make sure it's done correctly

    Todd: it may not make sense to give up stewardship
    ... so I'd keep in the charter

    Ilya: ok, let's keep it in the charter and resolve the
    differences between the specs

    Marcos: do we know why it's in the html spec?

    Plh: I propose that we keep it separate for now. it doesn't
    look like the definition in html spec is complete. we'll need
    to talk to them

    Ilya: Server Timing is missing
    ... add CPU and memory
    ... [13]https://github.com/w3c/charter-webperf/pull/1

      [13] https://github.com/w3c/charter-webperf/pull/1

    Yoav: not sure if it belongs to us or houdini

    Ilya: visibility seems more like houdini but they're not aware
    of the problems

    Yoav: should we do use cases then?

    Todd: seems appropriate

    Ilya: can we make it a goal for the group to draft use cases?

    Plh: sounds good

    Todd: ok

    Ilya: emphasizing working with other groups

    Plh: we should make sure we get reviews from webapps, tag, and
    ... in the deliverables section

    <ToddReifsteck> FYI, here is an example of how CSS lists
    Deliverables: [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/09/CSSWG/charter

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2010/09/CSSWG/charter

    Marcos: charters looks ok to me otherwise


      [15] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Web_Performance/Publications

    Todd: I'll put a pointer to the dashboard then

    Ilya: setImmediate?

    Todd: I'll have data in 3 weeks


      [16] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document.html

    Todd: it's more likely we get our charter more quickly
    ... without the new license

new draft for Performance Observer

    Ilya: please have a look at the PR


      [17] https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/pull/10

    Todd: we added various fields to navigation timing but didn't
    implement them
    ... should we keep them?

    Ilya: for chrome, we are looking for a bunch of them, like
    ... it's a question of when
    ... some of the feedbacks is that it's not easy to find what's

    Todd: linkNegotiation, sizes, type, workerStart

    Plh: they're listed in the status but I guess folks don't look
    at it

    Ilya: we'll have to do some refactoring

    <marcosc__> Bugzilla bug:

      [18] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1043083

    Ilya: and be more precise on what has been implemented and

    Marcos: would be good to link to browser bugs

    <marcosc__> [19]https://w3c.github.io/manifest/

      [19] https://w3c.github.io/manifest/


    Implementation status:




    Tood: seems a good solution for us

    <yoav> Sorry folks, but I gotta go. Another meeting coming

    Plh: I wanted to adopt CSS conventions for our draft, eg
    performance-timeline, performance-timeline-2,

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:55:00 UTC