- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 15:48:54 -0400
- To: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
17 May 2018
Attendees
Present
yoav, plh, Tim, Nic, nolanlawson, philipwalton, garrett
Regrets
igrigorik
Chair
Todd
Scribe
yoav
Contents
* [2]Topics
* [3]Summary of Action Items
* [4]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
plh wants to add NavTiming2 to the agenda
Topic: F2f?
Nic: F2F at Fluent? Was good in past years
Todd: Not planning to be at Fluent. perhaps try a virtual F2F
as a way to make forward progress
NicJansma: Would work for me. Could be hard but we can give it
a try
yoav: Having Apple and Mozilla in the room is pretty
important.
yoav: Including all primary implementors makes these
meetings much more valuable.
AI: Todd to schedule a virtual full day call about a month from
now
... Yoav to tag external folks that are critical for some of
the RT issues and schedule time within that day to discuss
those issues
Todd: Charter as written is appropriate. Renewing the charter
makes sense. The chairs will coordinate next week
Topic: User Timing
philipwalton: User Timing - 1 outstanding issue
[5]https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Ai
ssue+milestone%3A%22Level+2%22
[5]
https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues?q=is:open+is:issue+milestone:"Level+2"
[6]https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/29
[6] https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/29
<toddreifsteck> User Timing Issue
29--[7]https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/29
[7] https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/29
yoav: seems similar to the issue cvazac ran into when writing
Server Timing tests
cvazac: Does look similar
toddreifsteck: we can create a stand alone test instead of
using the non-existing infra
assigned to npm
plh: are we passing the tests for PerfObservers on user timing?
[8]https://wpt.fyi/user-timing
[8] https://wpt.fyi/user-timing
plh: the tests should be in the user-timing directory. I'll
check where they actually are
[9]https://wpt.fyi/performance-timeline
[9] https://wpt.fyi/performance-timeline
po-mark-measure is green in 3 implementations
toddreifsteck: are we taking user timing to CR?
Resolved: User timing is moving to CR
Topic: HR Time
<toddreifsteck> [10]https://github.com/w3c/hr-time/issues/56
[10] https://github.com/w3c/hr-time/issues/56
plh: the spec is imprecise on purpose
toddreifsteck: maybe we need a bit more specific language?
plh: you tell me
toddreifsteck: I don't think a more precise language is needed.
I think implementers can implement
<plh> [11]https://w3c.github.io/hr-time/#clock-resolution
[11] https://w3c.github.io/hr-time/#clock-resolution
<plh>
[12]https://w3c.github.io/hr-time/#sec-domhighrestimestamp
[12] https://w3c.github.io/hr-time/#sec-domhighrestimestamp
plh: the note is no longer accurate. We can remove it, close
the issue and move to PR?
toddreifsteck: fair
RESOLUTION: hr-time-2 to proposed recommendation
toddreifsteck: and that will update the existing proposed rec
plh: yeah, we should send a note to the privacy folks and see
their reaction
Topic: Beacon
<toddreifsteck> [13]https://github.com/w3c/beacon/issues/58
[13] https://github.com/w3c/beacon/issues/58
toddreifsteck: assigning to nolanlawson
[14]https://github.com/w3c/beacon/issues/59
[14] https://github.com/w3c/beacon/issues/59
toddreifsteck: Brandon will fix this in sometimes in the next
month
... otherwise, I think we're all green
... have we sent beacon to rec yet?
plh: once the tests are green, REC it is
<xiaoqian> [15]https://wpt.fyi/beacon
[15] https://wpt.fyi/beacon
No implementation is fully green
toddreifsteck: need to ask someone to run it on all the latest
dev versions, after the tests are fixed
... AI send an email to report on test results on dev browsers
after tests are fixed
Topic: Resource Timing
NicJansma: We used to have a couple of branches. Decided to not
have a split between the v2 and gh-pages
now gh-pages is v2 and v2 branch is gone
At the point we actually ship v2, we will re-branch
2 open PRs
[16]https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/pull/155
[16] https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/pull/155
Proposal to change the minimum buffer size to 250
not much opposition
not a requirement, as browsers can have a lower size
but it will help many analytics cases
toddreifsteck replied that it look good for Edge
digitarald will check with Moz team
<tdresser> tdresser taking over as scribe
[17]https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/110
[17] https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/110
<tdresser> 16 open L2 issues in resource timing
[18]https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/148
[18] https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/148
yoav: 110: It felt like we should put a note in the
fetch spec, but in practice looking at the fetch spec, it
didn't make sense, so we just closed the issue.
yoav: 148: Merged PR and closed issue, getting rid
of mention of default actions.
[19]https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/70
[19] https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/70
yoav: No one implements the spec here.
yoav: No security threat here, service workers can
get the same information.
yoav: The spec says we should exclude resources
fetched by cross-origin stylesheets fetched with no-cors
policy.
yoav: No one does this, we should update the spec to
reflect this.
<tdresser> todd: Do TAO headers matter here?
yoav: It's not a question of TAO, it's a question of
whether the URL is shown in the Resource Timing entry.
<tdresser> todd: The conclusion that we should expose these
seems reasonable to me.
<tdresser> digitarald: I'll check with other moz folks.
[20]https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/122
[20] https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/122
<tdresser> yaov: We don't have an ALPN for http1.0.
yoav: I'll add a note explicitly mentioning http/0.9
and http/1.0.
<plh>
[21]https://w3c-test.org/navigation-timing/po-navigation.html
[21] https://w3c-test.org/navigation-timing/po-navigation.html
Topic: Navigation Timing
plh: NavTiming2 is not implemented by anyone but chrome. Edge
doesn't count because no PerfObs
toddreifsteck: so you choose to tie this spec to perf timeline
2?
plh: the tests don't pass, so...
toddreifsteck: you're tying 2 specs that are not joined
together
... on Edge 17 we will match chrome on all properties other
than the bytes properties (probably at Edge 18)
this time next year we'll ship exactly what chrome is shipping
Firefox is very close to chrome
plh: that spec is not being implemented rapidly
toddreifsteck: Chrome implemented the breaking change, now
other UAs are slowly following
that's just how breaking changes get deployed
<tdresser>
[22]https://wpt.fyi/navigation-timing/nav2_test_redirect_server
.html
[22] https://wpt.fyi/navigation-timing/nav2_test_redirect_server.html
panagiotis: will look at the test and see how far Firefox are
toddreifsteck: Chrome shipped almost a year ago, right?
plh: yeah
toddreifsteck: afaik, no issues reported
... did the change of name from document to url break anything?
tdresser: will check with Ilya
toddreifsteck: so right now, no 2 implementations. shortest
path is Firefox fixing a bug
... do we know where safari is?
yoav: both tests don't seem to pass on STP
toddreifsteck: next call on 31 may 11am
Summary of Action Items
Todd to send out request for beacon results for in development
browsers after tests are fixed.
Todd to schedule a virtual full day call about a month from now
Summary of Resolutions
1. user timing 2 to candidate recommendation
1. HR time 2 to proposed recommendation
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 19:49:17 UTC