W3C

- DRAFT -

Web Performance Working Group Teleconference

27 Feb 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Daniel_Austin, Plh, +1.650.701.aaaa, [Microsoft], +43.732.908.2aabb, +1.650.214.aacc, DanielAustin, plh, Alois, JatinderMann, Arvind
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
JatinderMann

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 27 February 2013

Test Cases

http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Intel/resource-timing/

Jatinder: I noticed that Resource Timing test cases still don't work in IE. I'll follow up in mail.

Beacon API

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html

beacon("POST", "/log", analyticsData);

James: I want to make sure that the spec is very clear that just because you are building data on the unload, we don't want to make people think that we're going to wait minutes to make this call.
... What if we have 5GBs of data? Do we want to set limits?

<plh> I added a link to the draft from http://www.w3.org/wiki/Web_Performance/Publications

Jatinder: Sounds reasonable that we put in some limits. Don't want the browser to wait forever.

Arvind: Should we keep the domain cookie or not for this response? I'm not sure what we should do here.

James: What about XHRs?

Daniel: If the beacon is ad related I don't expect it to impact cookies.

Arvind: We should make sure that the spec text doesn't say gauranteed, it should say best effort.

Jatinder: There were some considerations that I hadn't included in this spec. What if the browser is shutdown? Should we persist this information on disk and attempt to send it out next time? What if the browser gets an error in the response, does it attempt to send the data out again?

James: I think we should stick with the current, simple model where we attempt to send it once asynchrnously. If there is demand to increase our attempts or do some persisting work, we can consider that in L2 or based on feedback.

Jatinder: Okay, I'll keep the approach simple and move away from gauranteeing this will work to trying a best effort attempt.

Arvind: I want to make sure that Firefox reviews this spec as well, as they had privacy concerns with the Ping API. I can see that this API is different from Ping and tries to accomplish something different, but we should make sure there are no privacy concerns.

Jatinder: I'll update the spec based on today's feedback and send mail to the mailing list for additional feedback. I'll make sure Boris is CC'd.

Next Week's Agenda

Jatinder: Should we cover prerender or diagnostics next week?

Arvind: Let's cover prerender two weeks from now, as I will be out next week.

Alois: We can cover diagnostics next week. I'll follow up with you offline.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-02-27 18:30:54 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: Daniel_Austin, Plh, +1.650.701.aaaa, [Microsoft], +43.732.908.2aabb, +1.650.214.aacc
Present: Daniel_Austin Plh +1.650.701.aaaa [Microsoft] +43.732.908.2aabb +1.650.214.aacc DanielAustin plh Alois JatinderMann Arvind

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

Found Date: 27 Feb 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/02/27-webperf-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]