See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 25 April 2012
<scribe> scribe: 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.
... 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?
<plh> http://www.w3.org/2012/04/navigation_timing_cr_results.html
plh: Test passes in IE9 and fails in IE10.
Jatinder: That shouldn't be the case. I will look into this test case.
Arvind: There was a discussion on adding a PerformanceNavigationTiming. Should we add that in PerformanceTimeline or NavigationTiming2?
plh: We can add to Navigation Timing 2, that seems like the logical approach.
Arvind: I was hoping to add additional attributes to Navigation Timing 2.
Jatinder: I can remove data from Section 4.4 in PerformanceTimeline into this new spec and make the PerformanceNavigationTiming entry.
Action Jatinder Move the data from Section 4.4 in PerformanceTimeline and add the PerformanceNavigationTiming entry.into Navigation Timing 2 spec.
<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].
<plh> ACTION: plh to add wording on getting implementations before removing prefixes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-webperf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Add wording on getting implementations before removing prefixes [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2012-05-02].
Jatinder: We have no action items or remaining feedback for this spec.
plh: Should we move to CR for this spec?
Jatinder: The spec seems stable enough that we should move it forward.
Tony: Let's make sure that we have some text that says we do not remove prefixes until we have two reference resources.
Jatinder: This spec has no feedback or action items. Shall we move this spec to CR as well?
plh: We can include this spec with the others.
Jatinder: I have prepped the
changes requested by Simon from Opera. They all involve changes
in the notes.
... Otherwise, there are no remaining feeback or action
items.
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?
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.
... 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.
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.
Jatinder: Considering we have no other actions, can we move this spec to CR along with the other specs?
James: I'm fine with that.
Arvind: That's okay with me.
Tony: We are working on an implementation and this one seems simple.
Plh: Okay.
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.
... We still have that one remaining open issue on the
unload/pagehide/pageshow events. Has Google decided on their
point of view?
Arvind: We are currently in discussions on this topic and will have reply with our stance soon.
Jatinder: There was a dicussion on the mailing list on whether or not to meet at the Velocity conference in June of this year.
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.
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.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: JatinderMann Inferring ScribeNick: JatinderMann Default Present: [Microsoft], Plh, ifette, +1.650.253.aaaa, +1.404.978.aabb Present: [Microsoft] Plh ifette +1.650.253.aaaa +1.404.978.aabb plh JatinderMann simonjam Arvind TonyG WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 25 Apr 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-webperf-minutes.html People with action items: plh[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]