Re: User Timing Mark Name for "Critical Content Loaded"?

I raised a question back in October [1] about the consistency and
redundancy of the "Recommended" mark names, and while in hindsight it
probably would have been a good idea to camel-case the recommended names
and remove the word "mark", the spec had already reached recommendation.
With Firefox OS I decided to break away from the recommended mark names in
order to cover our use cases, and move ahead with the marks that are in
place now. If I recall the rest of the thread, we proposed that the
Recommendation be revised, but that didn't go anywhere. We had searched
Chrome source back at the time and couldn't find any occurrences of the
inconsistent markers and other vendors were not using them as well, which
solidified our decision to continue on with what we considered the right
way was.

My preference is still that we either work to define better "Recommended
Markers" that are more consistent and revise that section, rather than just
changing the names around to make them fall in line with what is currently
spec'd.

Thoughts?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Oct/0035.html

Eli Perelman
Mozilla


On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> On 06/23/2015 01:07 PM, Patrick Meenan wrote:
>
>> Awesome.  navigationLoaded looks to be exactly what I was describing.
>> The others look pretty similar to the ones defined in the spec but with
>> different names - any reason in particular (or were they created before
>> the named ones in the spec existed)?
>>
>> I'd be happy to track the same named marks in Chrome though it would be
>> nice if we could get the spec and the Mozilla names to converge.
>>
>
> I added
>  https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/5
>
> Philippe
>