Re: performance.measure usage data

Awesome work, thanks for gathering this data!

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Timothy Dresser <tdresser@chromium.org>
wrote:

>
> This data is for the last 5 days, aggregated across all platforms, on
> Chrome's dev channel.
> We see 0.100% of page views use some timestamp from Navigation Timing.
>
>    - Can we deprecate the use of NavigationTiming timestamps from
>    performance.measure?
>       - I think the usage is high enough that we shouldn't deprecate
>       this, but should move the list of acceptable timestamps into UT L2, and
>       clarify the spec regarding how these timestamps behave, as discussed
>       here <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/31>, here
>       <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/22> and here
>       <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/26>.
>
> +1


>
>    - Can we pass an object as measure's second parameter without breaking
>    pages?
>       - Yes!
>    - Should performance.measure work with resource timing entries?
>       - I think the L3 proposal
>       <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hltt8z9C4PaI5Qu1YMIp1wOGdbJPJPoJwBarEeCY6xQ/edit#heading=h.ejti6qhmjv0b>
>       covers this use case, and we should discourage the use of special
>       timestamps being passed into measure. I propose WontFix'ing the
>       issue <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/27>.
>
> sgtm.