- From: Timothy Dresser <tdresser@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:13:15 -0400
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Cc: Nicolás Peña <npm@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHTsfZBHqn2Wnky87ebjq2uCNvL5ZK=HuNsJRNNy3tJy9idp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
I'll follow up with Chrome's devtools team. On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:15 AM Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote: > Nice, thanks for triaging these Nicolas! Overall, agree with your > assessment that there shouldn't be any blockers here. > > There is a common theme running through #40 and #25, which I'd love to get > more input on from folks working on DevTools and JS frameworks, before we > close them out. Given that dev tools integrations has been one of the key > drivers for UT adoption, and popular JS frameworks have expressed interest > in integrating with DevTools, this seems like an area we should explore a > bit more. That said, none of this is blocking, even if we decide on adding > some new attributes, they would be incremental to what we already proposed. > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:45 PM Nicolás Peña <npm@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've triaged User Timing L3 issues >> <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues> and I think there are no >> bugs blocking Chrome from shipping the L3 version which is now in draft >> version. Here are my thoughts on the outstanding issues: >> >> - Issue 40 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/40>: editorial >> work, no changes to API itself. >> - Issue 47 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/37>: editorial >> too. >> - Issue 25 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/25>: I think we >> do not intend to add a 'severity' field for this use case. Even if we did, >> it would have to be a new field and should not affect existing fields of >> the API. >> - Issue 17 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/17>: there are >> lots of ideas here, but the core use case is measuring rendering times of >> elements, which is what our ElementTiming proposal is about. This is >> probably out of scope of UserTiming. If it was added, it would not break >> the existing processing. >> - Issue 15 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/15>: the >> proposal seems more related to our new EventTiming API, and thus also out >> of the scope of UserTiming. Even if implemented, it would be a completely >> new feature that should not break the existing processing model. >> >> Given my assessment of these issues, I believe there are no blockers for >> an implementation (Chrome) to ship. Let me know if there are any questions >> or concerns. Thanks! >> >
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2019 14:13:50 UTC