See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 22 April 2015
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-navigation-timing-2-20150422/
Todd: talked to Adrian before this call. as long as the charter covers the scope, without broadening it too much.
... as long as we have general deliverables, we should be fine
... CPU and memory is an example
... "solve the pb of understanding CPU and memory on the web page"
https://github.com/w3c/charter-webperf/pull/4
<igrigorik> https://rawgit.com/toddreifsteck/charter-webperf/2015draft/index.html
Todd: TODO: add remaining information, sort by priority.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oCfLli-Llm1GjiGcoXprY1eLwK-C6OPRH2XP8zHrtlg/edit#
Ilya: on deliverables: Performance Observer is part of Timeline. no need to call it out
"The working group will deliver updated versions of the following:"
[[
Timing control for script-based animations
An interoperable and efficient means for web page authors to write script-based animations where the user agent is in control of limiting the update rate of the animation.
]]
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#the-window-object
http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/browsers.html#the-window-object
Ilya: should we remove requestAnimationFrame from our list?
... let's have it as an open issue for now
... should we move that spec in a separate section, moving into the html spec, but we need to make sure it's done correctly
Todd: it may not make sense to give up stewardship
... so I'd keep in the charter
Ilya: ok, let's keep it in the charter and resolve the differences between the specs
Marcos: do we know why it's in the html spec?
Plh: I propose that we keep it separate for now. it doesn't look like the definition in html spec is complete. we'll need to talk to them
Ilya: Server Timing is missing
... add CPU and memory
... https://github.com/w3c/charter-webperf/pull/1
Yoav: not sure if it belongs to us or houdini
Ilya: visibility seems more like houdini but they're not aware of the problems
Yoav: should we do use cases then?
Todd: seems appropriate
Ilya: can we make it a goal for the group to draft use cases?
Plh: sounds good
Todd: ok
Ilya: emphasizing working with other groups
Plh: we should make sure we get reviews from webapps, tag, and webappsec
... in the deliverables section
<ToddReifsteck> FYI, here is an example of how CSS lists Deliverables: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/CSSWG/charter
Marcos: charters looks ok to me otherwise
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Web_Performance/Publications
Todd: I'll put a pointer to the dashboard then
Ilya: setImmediate?
Todd: I'll have data in 3 weeks
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document.html
Todd: it's more likely we get our charter more quickly
... without the new license
Ilya: please have a look at the PR
https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/pull/10
Todd: we added various fields to navigation timing but didn't implement them
... should we keep them?
Ilya: for chrome, we are looking for a bunch of them, like workerStart
... it's a question of when
... some of the feedbacks is that it's not easy to find what's new
Todd: linkNegotiation, sizes, type, workerStart
Plh: they're listed in the status but I guess folks don't look at it
Ilya: we'll have to do some refactoring
<marcosc__> Bugzilla bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1043083
Ilya: and be more precise on what has been implemented and where
Marcos: would be good to link to browser bugs
<marcosc__> https://w3c.github.io/manifest/
[[
Implementation status:
Gecko
Blink
]]
Tood: seems a good solution for us
<yoav> Sorry folks, but I gotta go. Another meeting coming up...
Plh: I wanted to adopt CSS conventions for our draft, eg performance-timeline, performance-timeline-2, performance-timeline-2,