17:01:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webperf
17:01:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-webperf-irc
17:01:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:01:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webperf
17:01:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WPWG
17:01:28 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:01:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
17:01:29 <trackbot> Date: 25 April 2012
17:01:33 <plh> zakim, this is per
17:01:33 <Zakim> plh, I see RWC_web-per()1:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be per".
17:01:42 <plh> zakim, this will be per
17:01:42 <Zakim> ok, plh; I see RWC_web-per()1:00PM scheduled to start now
17:01:49 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has now started
17:01:56 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
17:01:59 <Zakim> +Plh
17:02:23 <JatinderMann> present+ plh
17:02:26 <JatinderMann> present+ JatinderMann
17:02:31 <JatinderMann> scribe: JatinderMann
17:04:28 <Zakim> +ifette
17:04:29 <simonjam> simonjam has joined #webperf
17:04:46 <JatinderMann> present+ simonjam
17:08:17 <Zakim> + +1.650.253.aaaa
17:08:31 <JatinderMann> present+ Arvind
17:10:18 <JatinderMann> Topic: Navigation Timing Updates
17:10:58 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Test_timing_attributes_order.htm test case needs to be fixed. Karen has prepped a fix, however, it is incomplete. I will try to fix it before handing it off to Boris.
17:11:08 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: The test_document_readiness_exist.htm is failing in IE for the reasons Karens mentioned in this mail thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Apr/0062.html. Considering we added this test case here to ensure the HTML5 dependencies were stable, should we update the test case or find other ways to test the stability of the dependencies?
17:11:08 <tonyg> tonyg has joined #webperf
17:11:16 <Zakim> + +1.404.978.aabb
17:11:28 <JatinderMann> present+ TonyG
17:11:38 <plh> http://www.w3.org/2012/04/navigation_timing_cr_results.html
17:14:18 <JatinderMann> plh: Test passes in IE9 and fails in IE10.
17:16:42 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: That shouldn't be the case. I will look into this test case.
17:17:09 <JatinderMann> Topic: PerformanceTimeline
17:20:35 <JatinderMann> Arvind: There was a discussion on adding a PerformanceNavigationTiming. Should we add that in PerformanceTimeline or NavigationTiming2?
17:22:03 <JatinderMann> plh: We can add to Navigation Timing 2, that seems like the logical approach.
17:24:13 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I was hoping to add additional attributes to Navigation Timing 2.
17:25:02 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I can remove data from Section 4.4 in PerformanceTimeline into this new spec and make the PerformanceNavigationTiming entry.
17:29:12 <JatinderMann> Action Jatinder Move the data from Section 4.4 in PerformanceTimeline and add the PerformanceNavigationTiming entry.into Navigation Timing 2 spec.
17:29:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Move the data from Section 4.4 in PerformanceTimeline and add the PerformanceNavigationTiming entry.into Navigation Timing 2 spec. [on Jatinder Mann - due 2012-05-02].
17:29:20 <JatinderMann> Topic: Resource Timing
17:34:10 <plh> ACTION: plh to add wording on getting implementations before removing prefixes
17:34:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Add wording on getting implementations before removing prefixes [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2012-05-02].
17:40:31 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We have no action items or remaining feedback for this spec.
17:44:04 <JatinderMann> plh: Should we move to CR for this spec?
17:44:16 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: The spec seems stable enough that we should move it forward.
17:44:35 <JatinderMann> Tony: Let's make sure that we have some text that says we do not remove prefixes until we have two reference resources.
17:45:08 <JatinderMann> Topic: User Timing
17:55:30 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:55:31 <Zakim> - +1.404.978.aabb
17:55:31 <Zakim> - +1.650.253.aaaa
17:55:32 <Zakim> -ifette
17:55:34 <Zakim> -Plh
17:55:35 <Zakim> RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
17:55:35 <Zakim> Attendees were [Microsoft], Plh, ifette, +1.650.253.aaaa, +1.404.978.aabb
17:55:45 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: This spec has no feedback or action items. Shall we move this spec to CR as well?
17:55:53 <JatinderMann> plh: We can include this spec with the others.
17:56:03 <JatinderMann> Topic: High Resolution Time
17:56:22 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I have prepped the changes requested by Simon from Opera. They all involve changes in the notes.
17:56:35 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Otherwise, there are no remaining feeback or action items.
17:57:40 <JatinderMann> James: I recall there was a discussion of the origin of the high resolution time timebase of being navigationStart for each document. This would be unique for all subdocuments. For synchronizations reasons, should we make same origin subdocuments share the navigationStart of the parent?
17:58:31 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Actually, if a same origin subdocument wanted that information, it can already access the parent's navigationStart by using parent.performance.timing.navigationStart, for example.
18:00:02 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I think for the timing specs it makes sense to have each document keep its unique origin, as the timeline looks better. Recall, that the parent only has the subdocument on its timeline, not the resources for the subdocument. However, I think you bring up a valid concern for animation synchronization. I had sent a previous mail about window.animationStartTime as a way to synchronize multiple animations. 
18:00:44 <JatinderMann> James: Yes, the same origin subdocument can access its parent's navigationStart; that solves most concerns. I think the animationStartTime is interesting; I will talk to JamesR about this.
18:00:59 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Considering we have no other actions, can we move this spec to CR along with the other specs?
18:01:08 <JatinderMann> James: I'm fine with that.
18:01:15 <JatinderMann> Arvind: That's okay with me.
18:01:28 <JatinderMann> Tony: We are working on an implementation and this one seems simple. 
18:01:31 <JatinderMann> Plh: Okay.
18:01:36 <JatinderMann> Topic: Page Visibility
18:02:06 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: Boris and James Graham had requested that I clarify the processing model for the visibilitychange event. I have prepped a change for that and will push it out soon.
18:02:45 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: We still have that one remaining open issue on the unload/pagehide/pageshow events. Has Google decided on their point of view?
18:03:09 <JatinderMann> Arvind: We are currently in discussions on this topic and will have reply with our stance soon.
18:03:34 <JatinderMann> Topic: Web Performance F2F Meeting
18:03:55 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: There was a dicussion on the mailing list on whether or not to meet at the Velocity conference in June of this year.
18:04:32 <JatinderMann> Arvind: I agree that Jason's point is valid; the conference attendees can't attend the working group meetings and the conference will have these subjects covered. I don't think we should meet then.
18:05:12 <JatinderMann> Jatinder: I also agree that we should complete these specs first, as they are almost done, and then meet F2F to discuss the next set of work we want to do.
18:05:24 <JatinderMann> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:05:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann
19:31:09 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webperf