IRC log of webperf on 2012-10-10
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:52:26 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #webperf
- 16:52:26 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/10-webperf-irc
- 16:52:28 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 16:52:28 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #webperf
- 16:52:30 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be WPWG
- 16:52:30 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
- 16:52:31 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Performance Working Group Teleconference
- 16:52:31 [trackbot]
- Date: 10 October 2012
- 17:01:18 [ganesh]
- ganesh has joined #webperf
- 17:01:45 [plh]
- plh has joined #webperf
- 17:01:53 [plh]
- zakim, this is per
- 17:01:53 [Zakim]
- ok, plh; that matches RWC_web-per()1:00PM
- 17:02:01 [Zakim]
- +Plh
- 17:02:17 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Jatinder
- 17:02:21 [JatinderMann]
- present+ plh
- 17:02:24 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Arvind
- 17:02:27 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Tony
- 17:02:30 [JatinderMann]
- present+ Ganesh
- 17:02:57 [JatinderMann]
- Topic: Review ‘Status of this Document’ text template
- 17:03:23 [tonyg]
- tonyg has joined #webperf
- 17:03:28 [JatinderMann]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Oct/0007.html
- 17:04:37 [JatinderMann]
- Action Philippe to look into updating the 'Status of this Document' template for all Performance specs
- 17:04:38 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-106 - Look into updating the 'Status of this Document' template for all Performance specs [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2012-10-17].
- 17:04:53 [JatinderMann]
- Topic: Review HRT and Page Visibility Test Cases
- 17:05:38 [JatinderMann]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Oct/0014.html
- 17:10:30 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: Per the mailing list comments, we agree to moving test_cross_frame_start.html and monotonic-clock.html to the approved. There is a minor tweak for basic.html.
- 17:10:43 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: I want to keep a test to check that now() should be on performance.
- 17:11:02 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: You can add an additional test that checks if now() exists on performance.
- 17:11:05 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: Okay.
- 17:11:16 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: Should we remove prefixes in the approved tests?
- 17:12:02 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: The approved tests should have the prefixes removed, but for implementation ease, the submitted tests can have the prefixes.
- 17:12:08 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: That works for me.
- 17:14:32 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: Page Visibility: http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/
- 17:16:15 [JatinderMann]
- Topic: Moving to HRT to proposed recommendation.
- 17:18:17 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: Regarding bringing HRT to Web Workers, we have already discussed that instead of just bringing the performance.now() property to web workers, we are also interested in understanding what it'll mean to move the entire performance property, including the Timing interfaces, to web workers. Those changes will require additional thought and should be covered in V2 of the timing specs. In addition, there may be other web worker specific scenarios th
- 17:18:34 [JatinderMann]
- ...charter update and in V2 of the specs.
- 17:19:04 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: I agree.
- 17:19:07 [JatinderMann]
- Tony: I agree as well.
- 17:20:41 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: Considering we have two implementations (IE and FF) that pass the test suite, I recommend we move this specification to Proposed Recommendation.
- 17:21:16 [JatinderMann]
- ...Does the WG agree?
- 17:21:22 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: I agree.
- 17:21:24 [JatinderMann]
- Tony: I agree.
- 17:23:02 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: Thanks. I will setup a call for PR for next week.
- 17:23:09 [JatinderMann]
- Topic: RequestAnimationFrame
- 17:23:15 [JatinderMann]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/31
- 17:23:30 [plh]
- action-31?
- 17:23:30 [trackbot]
- ACTION-31 -- Cameron McCormack to consider including window.animationStartTime and the requestAnimationFrame() callback timestamp as monotonically increasing clocks, in UTC format with millisecond resolution. -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
- 17:23:30 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/31
- 17:26:28 [plh]
- issue-4?
- 17:26:28 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-4 -- We perhaps should support an element parameter to requestAnimationFrame() -- raised
- 17:26:28 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/issues/4
- 17:26:37 [JatinderMann]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/issues/4
- 17:28:09 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: There are two parts to this request: define window.animationStartTime and update the rAF callback parameter to be DOMHighResTimeStamp. The second part has been updated in the latest editor's draft. We should close on whether we want animationStartTime or not. animationStartTime has the benefit of helping synchronize multiple animations.
- 17:29:31 [plh]
- http://www.useragentman.com/blog/2012/09/23/cross-browser-gpu-acceleration-and-requestanimationframe-in-depth/
- 17:29:39 [plh]
- What’s requestAnimationFrame Doing When A Tab’s Not Visible? Depends On The Browser!
- 17:33:20 [plh]
- [[
- 17:33:21 [plh]
- Note
- 17:33:21 [plh]
- The expectation is that the user agent will run tasks from the animation task source at at a regular interval matching the display's refresh rate. Running tasks at a lower rate can result in animations not appearing smooth. Running tasks at a higher rate can cause extra computation to occur without a user-visible benefit.
- 17:33:24 [plh]
- ]]
- 17:33:29 [JatinderMann]
- Tony: Is animationStartTime supported in IE10?
- 17:33:32 [JatinderMann]
- JatindeR: Yes it is.
- 17:34:34 [JatinderMann]
- Tony: We should have Jamesr look at this.
- 17:35:47 [JatinderMann]
- http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/issues/5
- 17:36:43 [plh]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011May/0018.html
- 17:43:57 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: Regarding issue 4, I recommend we do not support element parameter. No browser supports the implementation today. If we want to consider this, we can look at in V2.
- 17:47:03 [plh]
- http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/W3C/NavigationTiming/basic.html
- 17:47:06 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: I agree. Let's close the issue
- 17:47:10 [JatinderMann]
- Close issue 4
- 17:52:22 [Zakim]
- - +1.650.214.aacc
- 17:57:14 [plh]
- "Statements of interest will be the basis for the discussion at the Workshop. What performance issues have you faced? What use cases would you like to ensure that implementations support? If you have tests to illustrate an issue or use case, please share them as well."
- 17:58:06 [JatinderMann]
- Philippe: On the issue of requestAnimationFrame behavior when the page is not visible, seems like FF, Chrome and IE have different implementations.
- 18:02:07 [Zakim]
- - +1.503.264.aabb
- 18:02:08 [Zakim]
- - +1.650.253.aaaa
- 18:02:09 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 18:02:11 [Zakim]
- -Plh
- 18:02:12 [Zakim]
- RWC_web-per()1:00PM has ended
- 18:02:12 [Zakim]
- Attendees were +1.650.253.aaaa, +1.503.264.aabb, +1.650.214.aacc, [Microsoft], Plh
- 18:03:14 [JatinderMann]
- Jatinder: IE does not fire the callbacks when the page is not visible - which is actually the most power efficient option, as there is no benefit to fire callbacks for an animation that a user can't see. For time based animaitons, not firing the callbacks when page is not visible will not impact how the animation would look when the page is visible.
- 18:03:51 [JatinderMann]
- .. I believe FF does an expontential backoff. I prefer if the spec is specific on the rate of callback. I'll follow up on the mailing list on this as well.
- 18:05:19 [JatinderMann]
- Close ISSUE-4
- 18:05:19 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-4 We perhaps should support an element parameter to requestAnimationFrame() closed
- 18:05:28 [JatinderMann]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 18:05:28 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/10-webperf-minutes.html JatinderMann
- 19:24:48 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #webperf