<trackbot> Date: 23 January 2013

<plh> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 23 January 2013

Test Suite

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.
... 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.
... 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.
... I've briefly reviewed the test cases that you had submitted at http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Google/resource-timing/
... 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]
... 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.
... 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.

Spec Issues

Jatinder: Resource Timing Duplicate Requests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Dec/0005.html
... 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.

James: I agree with that spec change.
... What if a resource is removed from the document and it was the first to make the request?

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.

Charter

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.

Arvind: I agree that we should put that in. Philippe, why don't you suggest dates and the editors can give feedback on them?

Plh: I'll send out the updated charter with milestone dates for review.

Arvind: What is our progress on our specs?

Jatinder: User Timing has no spec feedback. The test cases had been reviewed and approved by James.

Plh: Any objections to moving the Microsoft User Timing test cases to the approved folder?

James: No objections.

Plh: I'll move them.

Jatinder: I'll follow up with Intel on my feedback to their submitted test cases.
... 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.
... 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.

Plh: What about requestAnimationFrame?

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.

Plh: Shall we move requestAnimationFrame to CR?

Jatinder: Yes.

Arvind: Yes.

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.

Jatinder: Definitely.

Plh: Are there any objections to moving Navigation Timing 2 to First Public Working Draft?

Jatinder: No objections.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: JatinderMann
Inferring Scribes: JatinderMann
Default Present: Plh, +1.650.214.aaaa, [Microsoft], +1.408.203.aabb, Arvind, James, +1.703.948.aacc
Present: Plh +1.650.214.aaaa [Microsoft] +1.408.203.aabb Arvind James +1.703.948.aacc JatinderMann simonjam

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 23 Jan 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-webperf-minutes.html
People with action items: