IRC log of webperf on 2011-08-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:48:18 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #webperf
- 19:48:18 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/24-webperf-irc
- 19:48:20 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 19:48:20 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #webperf
- 19:48:22 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be WPWG
- 19:48:22 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
- 19:48:23 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
- 19:48:23 [trackbot]
- Date: 24 August 2011
- 19:59:50 [Zakim]
- RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM has now started
- 19:59:57 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:00:15 [JatinderMann]
- scribe: JatinderMann
- 20:00:18 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Jatinder
- 20:01:13 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:01:30 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Tony
- 20:01:44 [Zakim]
- + +1.650.214.aaaa
- 20:01:46 [simonjam]
- simonjam has joined #webperf
- 20:01:54 [JatinderMann]
- present+ JamesS
- 20:02:05 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Nic
- 20:03:08 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Karen
- 20:03:32 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 20:04:03 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Zhiheng
- 20:04:15 [Zakim]
- +Arvind
- 20:06:29 [JatinderMann]
- Topic: 1.Discuss microsecond timestamp resolution.
- 20:06:49 [Zakim]
- -??P1
- 20:08:04 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 20:10:42 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: The problem is we may want to provide sub-millisecond resolution for scenarios where microsecond solution is wanted, like graphics frame rate calculation. Microsecond resolution may not be necessary be for Navigation or Resource Timing, but may be needed for User and future timings like Graphics.
- 20:11:42 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: Based on the mailing list conversation, seeing that we have a monotonic clock, people shouldn't be comparing with Date.now(), so I think that argument shouldn't be used.
- 20:12:14 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: Yes, that is a good point. The two shouldn't be compared based on that reason.
- 20:13:16 [JatinderMann]
- Nic: But we have shipped Navigation Timing? We wouldn't want to break compatibility if we change the offset?
- 20:14:22 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: We can report microsecond resolution without the unix epoch offset when using getEntries() method but return the current millisecond unix epoch offset when looking at performance.timing directly.
- 20:14:44 [JatinderMann]
- Nic: That is a potential compromise.
- 20:15:13 [JatinderMann]
- Zhiheng: Do we need microsecond resolution for Navigation or Resource Timing?
- 20:15:50 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: We could spec it out that the NT or RT can round up to millisecond resolution if the UA wants.
- 20:16:03 [JatinderMann]
- Zhiheng: Makes sense.
- 20:16:09 [JatinderMann]
- Nic: So long long or double?
- 20:16:23 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: We should stick with double and not deal with this problem again.
- 20:16:39 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: And the double would be offset from the navigationStart from root document?
- 20:16:42 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: Correct.
- 20:17:15 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: We should probably also change the Monotonic Clock to not use unix epoch.
- 20:24:42 [JatinderMann]
- JamesS: We still need to respond to the finger printing email.
- 20:25:12 [JatinderMann]
- Tony: What was our planned response? Is it that there is no privacy concern or that the privacy concern isn't any worse then it is today?
- 20:26:21 [JatinderMann]
- Nic: To paraphrase, our findings were that the privacy concern wasn't any worse then it is today with what you can do with the onload events.
- 20:30:04 [Zakim]
- -Arvind
- 20:30:05 [Zakim]
- - +1.650.214.aaaa
- 20:30:05 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 20:30:06 [Zakim]
- -??P1
- 20:30:06 [Zakim]
- RWC_web-per(WPWG)4:00PM has ended
- 20:30:08 [Zakim]
- Attendees were [Microsoft], +1.650.214.aaaa, Arvind
- 20:31:01 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: We should take an action to both respond to that email thread with our findings.
- 20:31:09 [JatinderMann]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 20:31:09 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/24-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann