On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Panos Astithas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tom Ritter wrote:
>
>> Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less fingerprintable'
>> by only reporting possible values of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 - but there is
>> nothing in the spec about omi
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:52 PM Tom Ritter wrote:
> Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less fingerprintable'
> by only reporting possible values of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 - but there is
> nothing in the spec about omitting it if desired to reduce fingerprinting.
> This is a spec
Hi David, thanks for crafting this text. Would it make sense to also
mention countermeasures in the paragraph on privacy? (For instance:
disallowing use of this API for arbitrary origins or restricting access
to specific API methods.)
Given the significant privacy implications, I would lean toward
Below is an attempt to write comments on the charter to consider the
feedback so far in this thread. It's not clear to me what the right
charter changes to suggest for the privacy and fingerprinting issues
are; I've made a proposal here, but I'm open to alternative
suggestions.
There's also the q
Thanks everybody for the comments submitted so far on the WG rechartering
process, please keep them coming!
I would like to make two requests, if I may:
- feedback on specs and not on the recharter should be submitted to the
GitHub issue tracker for the spec (ping me if you can't find it)
- if you
>Adding to what Tom said...
>
>1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance
>characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but
>*should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep
>performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious purpo
On 7/10/18 10:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
The changes relative to the previous charter are:
https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F07%2Fwebperf&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2F07%2Fwebperf-charter
It looks like the new charter proposes to merge navigatio
Adding to what Tom said...
1. "Web developers want the ability to observe the performance
characteristics of their applications" - they want to do so, but
*should* they be allowed to do so? The API would give access to deep
performance data that could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes
(p
I have a few concerns.
The Long Task Specification is essentially a way for a website to know if
you have other tabs open and if they are CPU intensive tasks. That seems in
pretty fundamental opposition to the Same Origin Policy.
Device Memory clearly has made an effort to make it 'less fingerpri
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Performance Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2018/07/webperf-charter
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0002.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Friday, August 3.
The changes relat
Many of the proposed output specifications for this seem quite useful
for the kinds of work we are doing in Servo. While this is aimed at
web developers, it seems very useful for browser vendors to be
measuring things the same way. Having standard ways of doing this
means we'll be able to get more
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Performance Working Group
https://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Jun/0001.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Thursday, June 30.
Please reply to this
On 6/12/15 3:08 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html
So I have two main comments on the way this working group is operating.
Not sure how these can/should be reflected in the charter.
1) The deliverables and their interrelationships are a bit of a mes
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:08 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
>
> Web Performance Working Group
> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html
> https://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2015Jun/00
[ resending with corrected subject line ]
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Performance Working Group
http://www.w3.org/2015/05/webperf-charter.html
https://w3c.github.io/charter-webperf/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2015Jun/0066.html
Mozilla has the
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> So do you think our charter comments should push for merging the
> group into Web Apps? Or some of the deliverables (e.g., leaving the
> navigation timing and performance timing work?).
>
> (The group is currently standardizing requestAnimat
On Friday 2013-04-05 12:19 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Performance Working
> > Group. For more details, see:
> > http://www.w3.org/2013/01/webperf.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Performance Working
> Group. For more details, see:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/01/webperf.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Mar/.html
>
> Mozilla has the opportun
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Performance Working
Group. For more details, see:
http://www.w3.org/2013/01/webperf.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Mar/.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Thursday, April 11. Ple
19 matches
Mail list logo
