- From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:47:08 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <802863261002021047x577b97b2we3f10a5ab3a6b00e@mail.gmail.com>
Jonas, On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> > wrote: > > >> >> Also, what is the use case for the "Ticks" interface? > >> > > >> > The Ticks interface is a convenient way to store time measurements > >> > and > >> > retrieve it later on a page. > >> > I will have some example there. > >> > >> Why not just do: > >> myTimings = {}; > >> myTimings.fooStart = new Date(); > >> > >> etc? Javascript has perfectly good ways to store values already. > > > > window.timing property keeps timing info of previous navigation as > well > > so the Tick > > interface also provides a way to pass custom POI to the next page. Some > > security > > measure need to be added later though. > > Sounds like simply using > > sessionStorage.myTimings = {}; > sessionStorage.myTimings.fooStart = new Date(); > right. Tick() is indeed supposed to be a thin wrapper around the web storage. Now come to think of it, I tend to agree that it is probably not worthy putting in the spec. Thanks for the catch. > > >> >> I would really encourage that this spec be reduced to the most > >> >> important parts first and wait for browsers to catch up before adding > >> >> "nice to have" features. > >> > > >> > Agree and we do keep that in mind. Most of the the properties > >> > specified > >> > right now are > >> > on the critical path of user perceived latency though. > >> > >> That surprises me. See my first answer above. > > > > I meant these properties are in the latency critical path of the > element > > it belongs to... > > > >> > >> >> If implementations implement progress events on the various elements > >> >> it would seem like you would get most of the advantages from this > >> >> spec. > >> > > >> > The progress events are great, except that they mostly focus on > >> > downloading the content but > >> > not much about everything else, say, parseStart. > >> > >> Specs can be changed, nothing is set in stone :) > > > > Good to know. :-) Having more data exported in the progress events > will > > be > > good news to those performance debugging tools. When collecting latency > > field data, many developers perfer to fetch all timing info of an > > element (window.document?) > > at once and send a json object. > > thanks, > > Zhiheng > > While I agree that timing information is important, I don't think it's > going to be so commonly used that we need to add convenience features > for it. Adding a few event listeners at the top of the document does > not seem like a big burden. > User latency is quite sensitive to scripts at the top of the page. And it would be really bad if the measurement instrumentations themselves would much slow down the page. :-) Also, event listeners might not work in some corner cases (meta-refresh redirection?) Last, some (probably minor) concerns rise from the discrepancies between a natively recorded timestamp and that done in a js callback. thanks, Zhiheng > / Jonas >
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 18:47:38 UTC