17:55:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
17:55:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-webperf-irc
17:55:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:55:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webperf
17:55:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
17:55:17 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:55:18 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
17:55:19 <trackbot> Date: 23 January 2013
17:55:26 <JatinderMann> present+ JatinderMann
17:58:44 <plh> plh has joined #webperf
18:00:17 <plh> trackbot, start telcon
18:00:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
18:00:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
18:00:21 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:00:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
18:00:22 <trackbot> Date: 23 January 2013
18:00:28 <plh> zakim, this is per
18:00:28 <Zakim> plh, I see RWC_web-per()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be per".
18:00:35 <plh> zakim, this will be per
18:00:35 <Zakim> ok, plh; I see RWC_web-per()1:00PM scheduled to start now
18:01:03 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has now started
18:01:04 <Zakim> +Plh
18:01:56 <Zakim> + +1.650.214.aaaa
18:02:16 <simonjam> simonjam has joined #webperf
18:04:59 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
18:05:03 <JatinderMann> present+ simonjam
18:05:35 <Zakim> + +1.408.203.aabb
18:06:03 <JatinderMann> Topic: Test Suite
18:06:03 <plh> zakim, aabb is Arvind
18:06:03 <Zakim> +Arvind; got it
18:06:11 <plh> zakim, aaaa is James
18:06:11 <Zakim> +James; got it
18:08:41 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I believe the Intel User Timing test cases, http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Intel/user-timing/, were targeting an older version of the spec, as most of the tests are hitting script errors as they are trying to call window.performance.mark() and window.performance.measure(). These functions were removed from the User Timing spec prior to taking the spec to CR.
18:09:02 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Without them fixing those script error issues, it's hard to see the rest of the tests run. From glancing over their scripts, I wasn't able to find anything new compared to the Microsoft submitted test cases. I'll take a closer look.
18:09:13 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I also noticed that they are testing mark("secureConnectionStart"), which is an optional parameter, meaning the test case should be marked optional or just not be tested.
18:09:26 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I've briefly reviewed the test cases that you had submitted at http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Google/resource-timing/
18:09:44 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Looks like there are a number of test bugs which are causing the test failures, which I will enumerate in a separate mail to the mailing list. The key ones seems to be that the tests don't recognize the "document" PerformanceEntry. Also, the tests seem to expect resources to be named by the URL from which they were originally loaded, not the complete resolved URL of the resource. I've also noticed that the tests uses the window.locati[CUT]
18:10:21 <plh> agenda+ Charter
18:12:02 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: which hasn't been standardized (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/browsers.html#the-location-interface). I'll send a more detailed email.
18:12:34 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: On the Page Visibility front, I will upload the updated test_minimize.htm and test_tab_state_change.htm today. It's been updated to ensure that the visibilitychange event is registered on each subdocument.
18:12:40 <JatinderMann> Topic: Spec Issues
18:12:52 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Resource Timing Duplicate Requests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Dec/0005.html
18:14:20 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I believe, based on that last mail thread, that we wanted to update the spec to clarify that for the case where two requests in different documents ask for the same resource, the time spent waiting for the resource should be shown in both timelines. If the DNS look occurred in one document, but not the other, this time.
18:14:27 <JatinderMann> James: I agree with that spec change.
18:15:46 <JatinderMann> James: What if a resource is removed from the document and it was the first to make the request?
18:16:00 <Zakim> + +1.703.948.aacc
18:18:13 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We're trying to show the network activity, so I would say that the resouce wouldn't be removed from the timeline. I can try to clarify the spec here.
18:20:06 <JatinderMann> Topic: Charter
18:23:10 <Zakim> -James
18:23:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:23:14 <Zakim> -Arvind
18:23:15 <Zakim> -Plh
18:23:16 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
18:23:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Plh, +1.650.214.aaaa, [Microsoft], +1.408.203.aabb, Arvind, James, +1.703.948.aacc
18:23:28 <JatinderMann> Plh: The one piece of feedback on the Charter was that we should include the timeline for when we expect the specs to move to different milestones.
18:23:55 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I agree that we should put that in. Philippe, why don't you suggest dates and the editors can give feedback on them?
18:24:13 <JatinderMann> Plh: I'll send out the updated charter with milestone dates for review.
18:24:26 <JatinderMann> Arvind: What is our progress on our specs?
18:24:49 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: User Timing has no spec feedback. The test cases had been reviewed and approved by James.
18:25:14 <JatinderMann> Plh: Any objections to moving the Microsoft User Timing test cases to the approved folder?
18:25:20 <JatinderMann> James: No objections.
18:25:24 <JatinderMann> Plh: I'll move them.
18:25:37 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I'll follow up with Intel on my feedback to their submitted test cases.
18:26:24 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Resource Timing has one spec update that we had just discussed earlier. James had reviewed the test cases, and there was on piece of feedback (async XHR instead of sync XHR). I'll have that submitted.
18:27:40 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Page Visibility has no remaing spec changes. I have the updated test cases per Boris' feedback. I'll upload them today. I believe this is the only remaining work left for this spec. We had planned to move this spec to PR in three weeks per our last discussion.
18:27:51 <JatinderMann> Plh: What about requestAnimationFrame?
18:28:33 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: There was only one issue raised, the animationStartTime issue I had raised, however, the editor has closed on that issue in his last mail thread. There are no more remaining issues for this spec.
18:28:43 <JatinderMann> Plh: Shall we move requestAnimationFrame to CR?
18:28:48 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Yes.
18:28:52 <JatinderMann> Arvind: Yes.
18:29:39 <JatinderMann> Plh: I'll send mail to the mailing list next week to announce our intent. Jatinder, please make sure to add moving rAF to CR for next week's meeting agenda.
18:29:44 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Definitely.
18:30:06 <JatinderMann> Plh: Are there any objections to moving Navigation Timing 2 to First Public Working Draft?
18:30:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: No objections.
18:30:23 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:30:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann