Re: CR Draft for new hr-time REC

lgtm!

Non-blocking:
https://github.com/w3c/hr-time/issues/21#issuecomment-169856319 - does that
sound reasonable? May be a good small additional improvement before we hit
publish.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> This looks like a good publishing point to me.
>
> Ilya?
> Others?
>
> -Todd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:35 PM
> To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>; Ilya Grigorik <
> igrigorik@google.com>; Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>
> Subject: CR Draft for new hr-time REC
>
> I prepared a CR draft for the next hr-time recommendation:
>   https://rawgit.com/w3c/hr-time/hr-time-2-CR/index.html
>
> Now that the privacy review is done and gone, it removed the last blocker
> we had.
>
> I removed translateTime, figuring we won't get that one ready on time for
> this cycle.
>
> I moved the service workers to informative since I don't think we're
> depending on it at this time.
>
> Compared to hr-time-1:
> [[
>      Defines a precise definition of time origin for the purpose of all
> performance timeline related specifications;
>      Provides the base definition for the Performance interface, including
> support for the Performance.now method in Web Workers [WORKERS];
>      To mitigate cache attacks, the recommended minimum resolution of the
> Performance interface should be set to 5 microseconds.
> ]]
>
> Let me wrong know I got anything wrong or missed something.
>
> Philippe
>
>