- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:44:39 -0800
- To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Cc: Olli@pettay.fi, public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ad1a0c1e1002021244g3b9285c8l2a5f0dcdb16c865@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote: > Hi, Olli, > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote: > >> On 1/27/10 9:39 AM, Zhiheng Wang wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Thanks to the much feedback from various developers, the WebTiming >>> specs has undergone some >>> major revision. Timing info has now been extended to page elements and a >>> couple more interesting timing >>> data points are added. The draft is up on >>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebTiming/ >>> >>> Feedback and comments are highly appreciated. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Zhiheng >>> >> >> >> Like Jonas mentioned, this kind of information could be exposed >> using progress events. >> >> What is missing in the draft, and actually in the emails I've seen >> about this is the actual use case for the web. >> Debugging web apps can happen outside the web, like Firebug, which >> investigates what browser does in different times. >> Why would a web app itself need all this information? To optimize >> something, like using different server if some server is slow? >> But for that (extended) progress events would be >> good. >> And if the browser exposes all the information that the draft suggest, it >> would make sense to dispatch some event when some >> new information is available. >> > > Good point and I do need to spend more time on the intro and use cases > throughout > the specs. In short, the target of this specs are web site owners who want > to benchmark their > user exprience in the field. Debugging tools are indeed very powerful in > development but things > could become quite different once the page is put to the wild, e.g., there > is no telling > about dns, tcp connection time in the dev space; UGC only adds more > complications to the > overall latency of the page; and, "what is the right TTL for my dns record > if I want to maintain > certain cache hit rate?", etc. > > >> There are also undefined things like paint event, which is >> referred to in lastPaintEvent and paintEventCount. >> And again, use case for paintEventCount etc. >> > > Something like Mozilla's MozAfterPaint? I do need to work on more use > cases. > In practice I think this will be useless. In a page that has any sort of animation, blinking cursor, mouse movement plus hover effects, etc the 'last paint time' will always be immediately before the query. I would recommend dropping it. - James > >> >> The name of the attribute is very strange: >> "readonly attribute DOMTiming document;" >> > > agreed... how about something like "root_times"? > > >> >> >> What is the reason for timing array in window object? Why do we need to >> know anything about previous pages? Or what is the timing attribute about? >> > > Something got missing in this revision, my bad. The intention is to keep > previous pages' timing info only if these pages > are all in a direction chain. From the user's perspective, the waiting > begins with the fetching of the first page in a > redirection chain. > > > thanks, > Zhiheng > > >> >> >> >> -Olli >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 20:45:10 UTC