17:02:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
17:02:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-webperf-irc
17:02:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:02:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
17:02:20 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:02:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
17:02:21 <trackbot> Date: 10 April 2013
17:02:51 <JatinderMann> present+ JatinderMann, AaronHeady, plh, DanAustin
17:04:06 <JatinderMann> present+ ArvindJain
17:04:11 <JatinderMann> present+ JasonWeber
17:05:54 <JatinderMann> present+ simonjam
17:06:04 <JatinderMann> Topic: Continue Discussion on Error Logging and Diagnostics
17:06:22 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Let's discuss Error codes that Dan had put together, security scenario Aaron had raised, and real time notification of errors.
17:07:59 <ganesh> ganesh has joined #webperf
17:09:12 <JatinderMann> present+ Ganesh
17:11:08 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Spec updates that I've been working on: making two separate interfaces called HistoricalErrorLogging and ErrorLogging, spec clarifies that only HistoricalErrorLogging is persisted across sessions. I'll send an email when I have pushed up these changes.
17:13:24 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Should we specify the ability to disable the feature?
17:15:18 <JatinderMann> Dan: I don't want to link this feature with cookies. If we can add a seperate section that gives guidance to the user agent to add a global setting to turn off the historical data logging feature, I think that's fine.
17:15:25 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I'll put that in the privacy section.
17:15:31 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Error list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Apr/att-0007/WebRequestStatusCodes4.html
17:16:10 <JatinderMann> Dan: This is a more complete list of things we should consider, not necessarily a list of things we should require in the spec.
17:16:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Is abandonment / abort on the list?
17:21:21 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We either have an option of keep generic errors or standarize on a specific list. Personally, I like the standarized list, because users won't have to learn different errors per user agent and we will have consistent errors with third party services like gomez and keynote.
17:21:56 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Has anyone taken a closer look at this list?
17:21:58 <plh> 599 Network connect timeout error (Unknown)
17:21:58 <plh>     This status code is not specified in any RFCs, but is used by Microsoft HTTP proxies to signal a network connect timeout behind the proxy to a client in front of the proxy.
17:22:09 <JatinderMann> Aaron: I had reiewed these error codes in detail and tried to compare them with Gomez.
17:22:56 <JatinderMann> Dan: I combed through many sources, including gomez and others, to get this full list. I tried to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Some properitary errors I think we shouldn't include, like the Blocked by Windows Parental Controls.
17:24:25 <JatinderMann> Arvind: We may want to add a high level category (DNS, TCP, etc) and then a more detailed error within that category. We can then just reference all the various specs, and not necessarily have to specify each one in this spec.
17:24:53 <JatinderMann> Dan: Personally, I don't think it's not useful to see if something is a DNS or TCP error, but I think it's much more useful to look at the actual errors.
17:34:38 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think we shouldn't make decision right now. Let's review the status codes and make a decision next week on what we should or shouldn't include.
17:34:50 <JatinderMann> Topic: Resource Timing spec updates
17:35:20 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: There was a discussion to make the Resource Timing connectEnd definition to be consistent with Navigation Timing connectEnd.
17:35:43 <plh> "connectEnd must include the time interval to establish the transport connection as well as other time interval such as SSL handshake and SOCKS authentication."
17:35:54 <JatinderMann> Dan: I believe it would be more useful to create a seperate phase for the SSL handshake and SOCK authentication.
17:36:32 <JatinderMann> Dan: Something like TCPConnectStart, TCPConnectEnd, etc.
17:37:05 <JatinderMann> James: I believe we went this way because not everyone has access to the SSL connection times.
17:41:15 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: For consistency with Navigation Timing Level 1, we should keep the Resource Timing Level 1 definition consistent with it. If we want to consider expanding the phases/attributes, we should do it for both the Level 2 specifications for Navigation and Resource Timing.
18:01:38 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I have also uploaded a Resource Timing Level 2 specification, which has the exact same text as the Level 1, but with a different name. We should start talking about how we want to define the audio and video behavior in this spec.
18:01:52 <JatinderMann> James: We should invite the Media folks to that discussion.
18:01:53 <Alois> Alois has joined #webperf
18:03:37 <JatinderMann> Alois, we just ended the conference call. We're still on US daylight savings time (minus one hour).
18:03:50 <JatinderMann> (I'm just writing up the meeting notes that I missed)
18:03:51 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I recommend we send out a proposal on the mailing list for what that would look like and schedule a discussion on that in the future, I'll add those details to the Level 2 spec after we agree on the proposal.
18:04:21 <JatinderMann> Topic: RequestAnimationFrame Feedback
18:04:49 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Boris had raised feedback on the requestAnimationFrame spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Feb/0036.html
18:06:05 <Alois> the dial in does not work
18:06:45 <Alois> ok thx
18:07:32 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Considering one can determine through script if an iframe is hidden or not, I don't think that's necessarily a missing piece. The rAF spec depends on the Page Visibility definition of hidden, which is tied to the top level document. We can consider an element visibility spec seperately and have rAF L2 point to that.
18:08:03 <JatinderMann> Arvind: Was the concern that if an iframe is below the fold, it's stil considered visible through Page Visibility?
18:09:08 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Yes, it is. I think there are a number of parties that would be interested in the visibility of certain elements, like iframes or canvases that are below the fold. E.g., advertisers uses numerous non-standarized methods to determine if their ad is visible, hidden, or partially visible. If we want to consider solving that problem, I recommend a seperate specification.
18:09:19 <JatinderMann> Dan: I would be interested in hearing more about this particular problem space.
18:09:57 <JatinderMann> Dan: I'd be interested in hearing the performance angle on that problem.
18:10:08 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think we should share out a proposal and discuss further. Such a spec would be in the limits of our current charter.
18:10:13 <JatinderMann> Topic: Charter Updates
18:10:34 <JatinderMann> Plh: I have recieved approval from the various AC reps for the new charter, which is a good thing.
18:11:04 <JatinderMann> Plh: I have also just sent out the approval for Page Visibility to the AC reps. I expect it to go to Rec soon.
18:11:16 <Alois> are you continuing the meeting?
18:11:32 <JatinderMann> No, just writing out the notes that I missed during the call
18:11:40 <Alois> sorry, was a long ay
18:11:46 <JatinderMann> It's hard to talk and type then
18:17:24 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:17:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann