19:24:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
19:24:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-webperf-irc
19:24:20 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, set logs world-visible
19:24:33 <JatinderMann> Meeting: Web Performance WG Teleconference #30 Agenda 2011-04-27
19:25:06 <JatinderMann> Meeting: Web Performance WG Teleconference #35 Agenda 2011-06-01
19:25:18 <JatinderMann> scribe: Jatinder Mann
19:26:04 <JatinderMann> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Jun/0004.html
20:00:30 <plh> zakim, list conferences
20:00:30 <Zakim> I see Team_(waiact)11:00Z active
20:00:32 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are INC_SSN()4:00PM, WF_(COMM)4:00PM, IA_Fonts()4:00PM, RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM
20:00:40 <plh> zakim, this will be web-per
20:00:40 <Zakim> ok, plh; I see RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM scheduled to start now
20:01:22 <Zakim> RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM has now started
20:01:29 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:02:27 <JatinderMann> present+ Philippe
20:02:29 <Zakim> + +1.650.214.aaaa
20:02:31 <tonyg> tonyg has joined #webperf
20:02:31 <plh> zakim, passcode?
20:02:31 <Zakim> the conference code is 97373 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), plh
20:02:45 <Zakim> + +44.207.184.aabb
20:02:56 <JatinderMann> present+ TonyG
20:03:01 <Zakim> + +1.512.851.aacc
20:03:05 <JatinderMann> present+ Philippe
20:03:11 <JatinderMann> present+ Anne
20:03:22 <JatinderMann> present+ JamesS
20:03:34 <Zakim> +Philippe
20:03:50 <JatinderMann> present+ Kyle
20:04:01 <Zakim> + +1.650.691.aadd
20:04:10 <JatinderMann> present+ Christian
20:04:18 <Christian> Christian has joined #webperf
20:04:25 <simonjam> simonjam has joined #webperf
20:04:54 <Christian> Zakim, who is on the phone?
20:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], +1.650.214.aaaa, +44.207.184.aabb, +1.512.851.aacc, Philippe, +1.650.691.aadd
20:05:41 <JatinderMann> present+ Zhiheng
20:05:45 <JatinderMann> Topic: Discuss Navigation Timings CR issues.
20:05:55 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Philippe has prepared a list of issues that were raised in the mailing list and may still need to be resolved: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/navigation-timing-issues.html
20:06:17 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Which of these are outstanding? Per Zhiheng’s response, it appears that only the http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm test case needs to be updated to deal with bfcache (we concluded that values shouldn’t change due to bfcache). 
20:06:31 <JatinderMann> Zhiheng: That appears to be the only issue so far.
20:06:59 <zhiheng> zhiheng has joined #webperf
20:07:52 <JatinderMann> Philippe: It would be best if we can respond on the mailing list if these issues have been resolved.
20:08:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Who would like to update the http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm?
20:08:45 <JatinderMann> Zhiheng: We can do so by using the onunloader handler.
20:08:57 <JatinderMann> Tony: Have we decided what the correct behavior here should be?
20:09:17 <JatinderMann> Zhiheng: We had discussed on the mailing list that we don't want to make a change here to reduce confusion.
20:09:25 <JatinderMann> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Mar/0110.html
20:10:31 <JatinderMann> JamesS: Don't we risk the page reporting the data twice here? 
20:12:25 <JatinderMann> Anne: I had a question about bfcache. Do you get domready events?
20:12:42 <JatinderMann> Kyle: It treats the page as being hidden and brings it back.
20:12:45 <JatinderMann> Anne: All browsers?
20:12:50 <JatinderMann> Kyle: Just Firefox.
20:13:59 <JatinderMann> Anne: On the first page load, if you dumped data to the server. If we go back and forward, would more stuff be added to the bfcache?
20:14:14 <Zakim> +[Google]
20:14:42 <JatinderMann> ...on a timer.
20:16:18 <JatinderMann> Anne: It should at least be marked in the data that this came from the back forward.
20:18:50 <Christian> anne=anne sullivan?
20:24:16 <simonjam> yes
20:26:01 <JatinderMann> ACTION Update the Navigation Timing to be clear what the expected behavior with bfcache on Zhiheng
20:26:01 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Update
20:26:11 <JatinderMann> ACTION to Zhiheng to Update the Navigation Timing to be clear what the expected behavior with bfcache 
20:26:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
20:26:38 <JatinderMann> Topic: Discuss feedback on Resource Timing and taking spec to Last Call.
20:27:14 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Per last week’s discussion, our goal is to enter Last Call for Resource Timing as soon as we can. I have added Section 4.6 Vendor Prefix to respond to Sigborn’s feedback on the mailing list, and have opened ACTION 35 and 36 to make similar changes to Navigation Timing and User Timing. Are there any other issues that need to be responded to prior to entering Last Call?
20:29:33 <JatinderMann> James: We need to discuss future direction. We need to do a better job with these APIs. We should treat the timing information similar to the DOM, have one API and build from it.
20:29:53 <JatinderMann> Arvind: Tony, what about the Navigation Timing API? Are your concerns only specific to Resource Timing?
20:37:36 <JatinderMann> James: For example, you tried to create a new performance timing API for webGL, we would have to create new APIs.
20:39:00 <JatinderMann> James to have an updated unified proposal API by end of the week.
20:39:16 <JatinderMann> Arvind: We shouldn't go into Last Call for a week or two.
20:39:37 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Agree that we shouldn't go into Last Call until we have consensus.
20:41:11 <JatinderMann> Kyle: I want to include the HTTP response code.
20:42:19 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I believe this was discussed on the mailing list prior - does anyone remember why we didn't make this change?
20:42:31 <JatinderMann> James: I believe it was because of privacy concerns that we didn't include this.
20:59:54 <Zakim> +??P8
20:59:57 <heycam> Zakim, ??P8 is me
20:59:57 <Zakim> +heycam; got it
21:00:18 <JatinderMann> Kyle: Should we allow third party scripts that are added via <script> to have the same level of access as a script added on the page.
21:00:28 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: The convention on the web is to treat third party scripts added to the page, as a script on the page.
21:03:35 <Zakim> - +44.207.184.aabb
21:03:45 <Zakim> - +1.650.214.aaaa
21:03:48 <Zakim> -Philippe
21:03:50 <Zakim> - +1.650.691.aadd
21:04:21 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:04:28 <Zakim> -[Google]
21:04:46 <Zakim> +[Google]
21:07:41 <JatinderMann> Kyle: Want to include HTTP response code. We can only provide this information to same-origin and not cross-origin.
21:07:47 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Biggest concern with HTTP response code is that they can create finger printing attacks. 
21:09:26 <Zakim> -[Google]
21:10:10 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
21:10:43 <Zakim> +[Google]
21:10:55 <Zakim> +Plh
21:11:24 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: There has been some heated debates on the mailing list whether we should use Page Visibility or IDLE states in order to help web developers write CPU and power efficient applications. We all want to provide the right tools to let web developers create efficient applications, we need to agree on the means. Let’s use the teleconference forum to discuss both proposals.
21:15:49 <JatinderMann> Jason: I don’t see these as competing proposals, but rather as complimentary. Today developers don’t have the information to informed decisions. For example, a developer doesn’t understand when a browser is minified; page visibility can help here. As I been looking at the threads for a few months now, I can see that there have been additional APIs that can help give more information. For example, the cpu idle state of the machine and the machine b
21:15:58 <JatinderMann> ...up is another interesting information that will be useful for web developers.
21:16:06 <JatinderMann> ...I recommend we continue with the current charter and finish these specs. We can continue to add more specs in the charter.
21:16:11 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I agree with what Jason just has said.
21:17:27 <JatinderMann> Kyle: What does Page Visibility give that IDLE doesn't?
21:19:56 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I need clarity on the multi-tasking/multi-monitor scenario. If we don’t provide a Page Visibility API and only provide an IDLE state API, how will a web developer know whether the user is definitively not viewing a page? If a user has a browser and another application opened and visible at the same time, but is only interacting with the application, the IDLE state API may change the behavior of a page, even though it shouldn’t.
21:28:15 <JatinderMann> Jason: If the page goes into  a background tab, the page may want to bring the resources down to zero.
21:28:21 <JatinderMann> Kyle: Fair enough that was a performance scenario.
21:28:31 <JatinderMann> Cameron: IDLE doesn’t give the scenario where the page is visible but is not being interacted with. 
21:28:41 <JatinderMann> Arvind: IDLE wouldn’t give the prerendered scenario either.
21:29:10 <JatinderMann> Kyle: That's definitely a scenario I haven't considered before.
21:55:11 <Zakim> -Plh
21:55:12 <Zakim> -[Google]
21:55:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:55:13 <Zakim> -heycam
21:55:14 <Zakim> - +1.512.851.aacc
21:55:15 <Zakim> RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM has ended
21:55:17 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], +1.650.214.aaaa, +44.207.184.aabb, +1.512.851.aacc, Philippe, +1.650.691.aadd, [Google], heycam, Plh
21:58:13 <plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-animation-timing-20110602/
22:05:42 <heycam> plh, cool, I'll update the version in hg with the new short name
22:23:17 <Christian> Christian has joined #webperf
22:31:26 <JatinderMann> Jason: We had re-chartered to specifically include Page Visibility into the Web Performance WG and we like where Page Visibility is going. We can re-charter to add machine idle and user idle in the future. Kyle, if you can draft up a proposal for user idle, we can consider it.
22:31:31 <JatinderMann> Kyle: Agreed.
22:31:39 <JatinderMann> Topic: Discuss feedback on requestAnimationFrame.
22:31:50 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I raised Issue-7 FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly. We may not want to allow objects to be registered as callbacks, especially seeing that the API seems to have been designed for function callbacks.
22:31:58 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We are planning on taking this spec to first public draft tomorrow. Are there any objections?
22:32:01 <JatinderMann> No objections.
22:32:09 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:32:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann
22:54:48 <JatinderMann> ACTION Zhiheng Update the Navigation Timing to be clear what the expected behavior with bfcache.
22:54:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Update the Navigation Timing to be clear what the expected behavior with bfcache. [on Zhiheng Wang - due 2011-06-08].
22:55:41 <JatinderMann> ACTION KarenAnderson Update http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm test case to deal with bfcache.
22:55:41 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - KarenAnderson
22:55:54 <JatinderMann> ACTION Karen Anderson Update http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm test case to deal with bfcache.
22:55:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Anderson Update http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm test case to deal with bfcache. [on Karen Anderson - due 2011-06-08].
23:13:30 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webperf