16:54:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
16:54:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/17-webperf-irc
16:54:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:54:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webperf
16:54:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
16:54:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
16:54:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
16:54:08 <trackbot> Date: 17 April 2013
16:54:16 <JatinderMann> Present+ JatinderMann
17:01:58 <JatinderMann> present+ DanAustin
17:02:12 <simonjam> simonjam has joined #webperf
17:02:22 <JatinderMann> present+ simonjam
17:02:40 <JatinderMann> present+ Arvind
17:04:10 <ellin> ellin has joined #webperf
17:05:59 <plh> plh has joined #webperf
17:06:03 <JatinderMann> Topic: Diagnostics and Error Logging
17:06:06 <plh> zakim, this is per
17:06:07 <Zakim> ok, plh; that matches RWC_web-per()1:00PM
17:06:10 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: James had raised that considering the level of detailed information we are considering sharing, we should go through a security and privacy review of this feature. I plan on reviewing this feature with the IE security team in the next week or so and can get back to the working group.
17:06:14 <Zakim> +Plh
17:07:27 <JatinderMann> James: Our security team has reviewed this and generally they are fine with this feature on a same origin. I need to follow up with the privacy team as well.
17:11:58 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I think we should definitely seperate out the historical and current interfaces, and probably in seperate specs.
17:12:24 <JatinderMann> Dan: If the historical interface has a higher privacy or security implications, we should seperate specs.
17:16:28 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We may want to consider updating the spec to include JavaScript errors as well?
17:16:36 <JatinderMann> Dan: We may want to consider that in the future.
17:17:58 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I propose we touch base on this topic after the security review.
17:18:03 <JatinderMann> Topic: Resource Priorities
17:18:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I had put together a draft of the Resource Priorities spec as a framework for discussion:
17:18:19 <JatinderMann> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourcePriorities/Overview.html.
17:19:52 <plh> note that video has preload
17:20:00 <plh> which is a hint
17:23:39 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
17:25:07 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: This aligns closely with the discussion on the mailing list. Adding "defer" to any element or object capable of fetching a resource, will mean that the UA may choose to not download that resource until after all other resources without the attribute have started downloading.
17:25:14 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Adding "defer" to a script element will mean that in addition to not beginning the download, the UA may also not execute the script until after the page has been parsed.
17:25:23 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: What I don't currently agree with is that style information or viewport visibility shouldn't impact whether the resource is downloaded. Determining intent is easiest for the developer and the developer should choose or not choose to add the defer tag.
17:25:38 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Also, I don't think any of these statements should be must clauses. They should be may.
17:27:26 <simonjam> load event blockers: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#delay-the-load-event
17:27:50 <JatinderMann> Dan: Considering the script element uses defer, I wonder if we should seperate this to another attribute.
17:30:40 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Seeing that script execution is already delay executed, it may make sense to combine these. But we may choose to use a new term like "delay".
17:31:08 <JatinderMann> James: What about changing the load event such that it's not impacted by the defer attribute resources.
17:39:20 <Zakim> - +1.408.203.aabb
17:47:56 <Zakim> - +1.650.214.aacc
17:47:57 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:47:57 <Zakim> - +1.626.379.aaaa
17:47:59 <Zakim> -Plh
17:47:59 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
17:48:01 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
17:48:01 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], +1.626.379.aaaa, +1.408.203.aabb, +1.650.214.aacc, Plh
17:48:07 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think we should think about this one some more. I wonder if we want to redefine the load event.
17:49:19 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: If we do decide to define that this spec does not impact load, it may make sense to give the attribute a seperate name, as real world sites may already use 'defer' with script and it will change behavior.
17:49:33 <JatinderMann> Dan: That's a good reason to change the name.
17:50:12 <JatinderMann> Arvind: Redefining load to push it out has the benefit of improving performance, as scripts can now execute sooner and not be delayed by deferred resources.
17:50:55 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Let's treat changing the load event and using defer or a different name as open items that need further discussion.
17:51:16 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I don't think style information should impact whether a resource is delayed or not.
17:51:21 <JatinderMann> James: I agree with that as well.
17:51:47 <JatinderMann> Dan: Seems odd that something at layer 7, formatting, impacts something at layer 4, transport. I agree that style shouldn't impact.
17:51:57 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has now started
17:52:02 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
17:52:03 <Zakim> Attendees were
17:52:10 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: There's also a performance impact on the browser to calculate that information at an earlier time.
17:53:04 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Let's agree to not include style information. What about viewport or above/below the fold? I think that the developer is the best person to determine that and they can do so by including or not including the tag.
17:53:37 <JatinderMann> Arvind: Is our goal to have a seperate spec or should this be put into HTML5? Seems small enough to add to HTML5.
17:53:57 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think this spec is a good framework for discussion. If we feel that this is more approperiately placed in HTML5, we should do that.
17:54:07 <JatinderMann> Topic: Resource Timing updates
17:54:11 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Spec has been updated to no longer refer to not well defined terms like "networking layer".
17:54:14 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Is adding a redirect-origin-clean flag really necessary?
17:59:27 <JatinderMann> James: We may not need the flag, but we may want to improve the redirectEnd definition.
17:59:35 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Good feedback, I'll look into it.
17:59:41 <JatinderMann> Topic: High Resolution Time L2
17:59:48 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We have posted a draft of the HRT L2 spec, which now includes support for performance.now() in the worker context. Spec is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/HighResolutionTime2/Overview.html
17:59:57 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Does everyone agree that the start of creation of a shared worker is step 1 of the worker processing model, here: http://www.w3.org/TR/workers/#processing-model
18:00:01 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: "Create a separate parallel execution environment (i.e. a separate thread or process or equivalent construct), and run the rest of these steps asynchronously in that context."
18:00:11 <JatinderMann> James: I agree, makes sense.
18:00:29 <JatinderMann> plh: I can get help get that editorial change made.
18:00:39 <JatinderMann> Topic: RequestAnimationFrame
18:01:32 <JatinderMann> plh: There is a discussion on whether or not rAF calls should be made for display:none or below the fold animations. Seeing that the spec is in last call, we need to decide how whether we want to take that feedback or not.
18:01:36 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:01:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/17-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann
19:14:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webperf