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

I still think that the bigger question isn't what string value to use,
but whether it is appropriate to say that certain "mark" names have
semantic meaning or not.

The way that the spec currently works, from my understanding, is that
it says "you can use whatever name of a mark you want. The names have
whatever meaning you assign to them. Except if you use names X, Y or
Z, those have a very specific meaning and will cause A, B and C to
happen.".

Another way to put this is that it feels weird that we have an API
which allows a page to add page-defined marker to a timeline. Except
that if you give those marker a specific name, it affects when the UA
render the page, which is a functionality completely unrelated to the
timeline (other than that both functionalities involve "time").

/ Jonas


On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Eli Perelman <eperelman@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 21:07:29 UTC