17:02:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
17:02:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-webperf-irc
17:02:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:02:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webperf
17:02:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
17:02:19 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:02:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
17:02:20 <trackbot> Date: 11 April 2012
17:02:40 <Alois> Alois has joined #webperf
17:03:07 <JatinderMann> scribe: JatinderMann
17:03:11 <JatinderMann> present+ JatinderMann
17:03:14 <JatinderMann> present+ Alois
17:04:59 <plh> plh has joined #webperf
17:05:08 <JatinderMann> present+ plh
17:05:10 <plh> zakim, this is per
17:05:10 <Zakim> ok, plh; that matches RWC_web-per()1:00PM
17:05:13 <Zakim> +Plh
17:05:15 <JatinderMann> present+ KarenAnderson
17:05:35 <JatinderMann> present+ Arvind
17:05:38 <JatinderMann> present+ Tony
17:05:51 <JatinderMann> Topic: Navigation Timing
17:06:36 <JatinderMann> plh: The good news is WebIDL is moving to CR, hopefully next week. This means we should plan to move Navigation Timing to PR.
17:07:01 <JatinderMann> http://www.w3.org/2012/04/navigation_timing_cr_results.html
17:08:17 <JatinderMann> plh: In these tests, I notice IE9 fails two tests, where as IE10 fails a test that IE9 passes. Comments Jatinder, Karen?
17:08:41 <JatinderMann> Karen: We discussed the two tests that IE9 failed, and we have fixed that in IE10. We will downport that fix at some point.
17:09:43 <plh> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_timing_attributes_order.html
17:10:36 <JatinderMann> plh: The test_timing_attributes_order.html is passing in IE10, failing IE9, Chrome and Firefox.
17:10:58 <JatinderMann> Karen: I wonder if the bug is in the test case, we should look into that. 
17:11:46 <tonyg> tonyg has joined #webperf
17:13:08 <JatinderMann> plh: It looks like there was an action item on updating the test_timing_attributes_order.html that may have not been completed. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Apr/0020.html
17:13:15 <JatinderMann> Karen: I will look into it.
17:13:35 <JatinderMann> Action Karen to look into test_timing_attributes_order.html to make sure it is correct.
17:13:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Look into test_timing_attributes_order.html to make sure it is correct. [on Karen Anderson - due 2012-04-18].
17:13:48 <plh> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_timing_attributes_order.html
17:15:17 <plh> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_navigation_type_reload.html
17:15:37 <plh> Fail	Reload loadEventEnd(0) == Original loadEventEnd(1334164524631)	assert_equals: Reload loadEventEnd(0) == Original loadEventEnd(1334164524631) expected 1334164524631 but got 0
17:17:02 <plh> http://w3c-test.org/framework/results/nav-timing-default/
17:18:58 <JatinderMann> Karen: We should let Boris follow up on the test_navigation_type_reload, as Firefox is the only UA failing.
17:19:08 <JatinderMann> plh: We should be good to submit very soon.
17:19:21 <JatinderMann> Topic: Resource Timing
17:20:03 <JatinderMann> JatindeR: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview.html#performanceresourcetiming-methods
17:24:36 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: The spec isn't clear on what to do when onresourcetimingbufferfull isn't defined. Should we have a circular buffer or throw things that are spilled over?
17:26:20 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Should we update the processing model to state that if the onresourcefull callback isn't defined we just don't add the resource to the primary buffer
17:26:41 <JatinderMann> Action Jatinder to update Resource Timing processing model to take care of the case that onresourcetimingbufferfull isn't defined
17:26:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Update Resource Timing processing model to take care of the case that onresourcetimingbufferfull isn't defined [on Jatinder Mann - due 2012-04-18].
17:26:47 <JatinderMann> Topic:
17:26:51 <JatinderMann> Topic: User Timing
17:27:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder:  Updates measure method without any parameters to store the duration from navigationStart to the current time, rather than fetchStart to the current time
17:27:28 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Updated all examples to include sub-millisecond resolution
17:27:50 <JatinderMann> ...		○ Throws an INVALID_ACCESS_ERR exception if either startMark or endMark argument, or both, have the same name as a PerformanceTiming attribute with a "DOMHighResTimeStamp" time value of 0.
17:28:11 <JatinderMann> ... I deleted that text.
17:28:50 <JatinderMann> Topic: Performance Timeline
17:29:11 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: To make the behavior very clear, updated Section 4.4 startTime attribute to return 0, per WG discussion last week.
17:31:10 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I responded to the NAvigation Timing attributes in High Resolution Time in this mailing list topic: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Apr/0027.html
17:31:18 <JatinderMann> Tony: I will ask James to respond to that topic.
17:31:30 <JatinderMann> Topic: High Resolution Time
17:34:40 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I made the following high resolution time updates: updated DOMHighResTimeStamp definition to take into account durations, updated DOMHighResTimeStamp definition to recommend microsecond resolution on millisecond units, added a note saying if sub-millisecond not possible, should return millisecond, resolution in millisecond unit, added a note saying that time spent not fully active is not excluded from current time
17:34:49 <JatinderMann> Topic: TPAC 2012
17:35:40 <JatinderMann> plh: Do we want to go TPAC this November in France?
17:36:19 <JatinderMann> plh: If I recall, other than interacting with Cameron, we didn't work too much with other groups.
17:36:57 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I agree that we didn't interact with other groups and the overhead might be significant.
17:37:08 <JatinderMann> Tony: I agree, we should maybe just meet on the west coast.
17:37:41 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think there is value in our WG face to face meeting, but I do see that the overhead is high for France and we don't usually interact with other WGs as well.
17:38:13 <JatinderMann> Arvind: We should probably poll the mailing list, but it feels like a no for France. I
17:38:20 <JatinderMann> plh: I will follow up.
17:38:40 <plh> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=45211&public=1&order=org
17:38:42 <JatinderMann> plh: Looks like we have decided not to do the face to face in France.
17:38:50 <plh> Future Web Technology, Baidu, Infraware, Qihoo 360, SK Telecom, Tencent
17:39:01 <Zakim> - +1.404.978.aabb
17:39:04 <Zakim> - +43.732.908.2aacc
17:39:10 <JatinderMann> Topic: Page Visibility
17:52:48 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:52:49 <Zakim> - +1.650.253.aaaa
17:52:49 <Zakim> -Plh
17:52:50 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
17:52:50 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.650.253.aaaa, +1.404.978.aabb, [Microsoft], +43.732.908.2aacc, Plh
18:05:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-webperf-minutes.html plh
18:06:41 <JatinderMann> Topic: Page Visibility
18:07:30 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I have made the following updates: updated Section 4.2 to move non-normative statements into notes and capitalized, MUST and MAY statements, added prerender as an optional state, added definition of the preview state, added an editorial note for Issue 8, added hook to HTML5 unloading processing model in the Page Visibility processing model
18:11:29 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:11:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann
19:30:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webperf