See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: JatinderMann
move to agenda 1
move to agenda 5
Jatinder: Zhiheng, can you summarize the update made to the Navigation Timing spec?
Zhiheng: When we talk about local resources, we implictly include some cases. In the original draft, requestStart includes checking http cache. We removed that. In case the http cache hit, we should include that requestStart, however, if we have a http cache miss, then it doesn't make sense.
Nic: That makes sense, but let us re-read this after the call.
Jatinder: This change should also go to the resource timing processing model?
Zhiheng: Yes, I will update Resource Timing also.
move to agenda 6
Jatinder: Thank you everyone for
helping us to get to this point. Per feedback from last week’s
call and the mailing list, many fixes went the FWPD
draft.
... I have closed ACTION-30 Update the Processing Model.
Jatinder: Tony has feedback on the definition of initiator types - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011May/0117.html
ACTION Jatinder to Update initiator types definitions to include elements that are included in that initiator types.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Update initiator types definitions to include elements that are included in that initiator types. [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-06-01].
We agree to updating CSS initiator type to CSS_SUBRESOURCE.
We agree to combining the frame and subdocument category into subdocument.
Agree to keep XMLHTTPRequest category as is.
Agree to keep SVG category to include all SVG subresources.
Also agree to naming CSS_SUBRESOURCE as CSS, if we are doing so for SVG, for consistency.
Action Jatinder to update spec to include a reference to what the expected behavior with plugins
<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Update spec to include a reference to what the expected behavior with plugins [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-06-01].
Jatinder: The IE team has conducted a security review of the Resource Timing feature and we have not found any significant issues.
Nic: A malicious site today can get to the same information (like is something in the cache) today using timing handles.
Tony: We should evaluate to see
if a privacy concern really does exist before we add text that
mitigates it. Rather not taint the spec with a privacy concern,
if there isn't one.
... Can Microsoft respond to the mailing list with information
on their security review (e.g., found no concerns).
Jatinder: Yes.
Jatinder: Now that we have the spec in a very stable state, I recommend we set next Wednesday (6/1/11) as our date to enter Last Call.
Considering we have a few actions items, let's set the Last Call date tentatively for next Wednesday. If we find that we are not targetting that date by end of this week, we can push it out.
move to agenda 7
Jatinder: Nic had submitted feedback to the current proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011May/0112.html
Tony: I haven't had a chance to
read the proposal yet. Can you summarize on the call briefly? I
can look at the mail after the call.
... I think we both agree that there should be a link between
marks and measures.
Nic: The bigger point with the
current spec was the ease of use of the apis from a web
developers point of view.
... In the mailing list, there are three examples given of the
advantages of the current proposal: Multi-Phase scenarios,
Retrieving only marks or measures, Finding the durations of a
specific scenario.
... Options can be to add the timestamps of the two marks to
getMeasures() in the current draft or go with your proposal and
allow for efficient access of just marks/measures (getMarks(),
getMeasures(), getMeasureDurations.
... Let's review the proposals further in the mailing list and
get feedback from all.
+Cameron
<plh> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/idl.svg
Jatinder: We need to close whether or not we feel that sharing the page visibility state is a privacy concern or not. Considering similar information can be found from window.onfocus and window.onblur, I recommend we don’t do any additional work here, as Page Visibility doesn’t change the existing privacy concern significantly.
Jatinder: Per the charter, this spec should be at FWPD by end of this month. I feel that the Page Visibility spec is now at a stable state that we can publish it as a FWPD. Let’s set next Wednesday (6/1/11) as our date to enter First Public Working Draft.
I will follow up on the mailing list.
move to agenda 8
move to agenda 9
Jatinder: The spec isn’t clear what is the expected behavior when a duplicate callback is called. E.g., requestAnimationFrame(callback1); requestAnimationFrame(callback1); We believe the expected behavior here should be that the duplicate callback is removed from the animation frame request callback list.
Cameron: We should do what setTimeout does. I would suppose it calls twice?
Jatinder: It does call twice. But when would you need to call a callback twice for graphics? The spec needs to be clear in any case.
Cameron: Jatinder, can you open an issue for this?
Jatinder: Yes.
We agree to publish both Page Visibility and Timing control for script-based animations as FPWD next week.
We will let the mailing list know of our intention to publish next week. Unless the WG disagrees, we will target the release next week.
Nic: As we defined in the Performance Timing specs, we defined the timing as wallclock time at the time of the page load. The timing increases monotonically, with the UTC time format and millisecond precison. We need to provide a queriable time that's comparable with existing time format.
Philippe: How much long would the Last Call period be?
Jatinder: It should match the Navigation Timing period.
Philippe: That was 4 weeks. We can target Resource Timing last call to be from June 2 - June 30.
<jdalton> any chance that we will see a high res timer added to window.performance ?
<jdalton> like Chrome's microsecond() Interval method
We discussed potentially bringing in such a timer.
Issue: (duplicate callbacks): Spec needs to clarify expected behavior for duplicate calls of the same callback [Request Animation Frame]
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-6 - (duplicate callbacks): Spec needs to clarify expected behavior for duplicate calls of the same callback [Request Animation Frame] ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/issues/6/edit .
<scribe> ACTION: Zhiheng to update Resource Timing spec with the same requestStart fix made in Navigation Timing spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/25-webperf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Update Resource Timing spec with the same requestStart fix made in Navigation Timing spec. [on Zhiheng Wang - due 2011-06-01].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: JatinderMann Inferring ScribeNick: JatinderMann WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: [Microsoft] +44.207.184.aaaa [Google] +1.650.214.aabb nick +1.650.691.aacc Plh New list: [Microsoft] heycam Plh Default Present: [Microsoft], heycam, Plh Present: [Microsoft] heycam Plh ArvindJain NicJansma TonyG JatinderMann JamesS Anne Zhiheng Chris Philippe Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011May/0118.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 25 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/25-webperf-minutes.html People with action items: zhiheng[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
