Repository navigation
Element Timing API #192
Description
Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification
- Specification Title: Element Timing API
- Specification or proposal URL: https://w3c.github.io/element-timing/
- Mozillians who can provide input (optional): @ecsmyth, @vickychin
Other information
A similar metric approach has been used in Firefox's performance automation https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1418368 .
Activity
dbaron commentedon Feb 27, 2020
There may be some useful info in w3ctag/design-reviews#326 and w3ctag/design-reviews#395.
martinthomson commentedon Feb 27, 2020
We just learned from Microsoft that this is shipping unprefixed in Edge and Chrome. We'd like to have a position soon.
sefeng211 commentedon Oct 22, 2021
I think we can resolve it as worth prototyping, cc @smaug---- @Bas-moz
smaug---- commentedon Oct 22, 2021
@emilio might have an opinion.
I didn't immediately see anything too harmful.
emilio commentedon Oct 22, 2021
Yeah I don't see anything particularly problematic. I'm a bit confused about how nodes in shadow trees are intended to be handled.
https://wicg.github.io/element-timing/#get-an-element seems to try not to expose them (but seems like they should still generate an entry). But https://wicg.github.io/element-timing/#sec-element-processing doesn't handle shadow DOM and shouldn't even look at shadow trees. So something there is clearly confused.
sefeng211 commentedon Oct 22, 2021
Elements inside shadow trees are not exposed as the resolution of WICG/webcomponents#816. If the
#sec-element-processingstep doesn't handle shadow DOM, then no entries will be generated for nodes in shadow trees, right? And this should be the desired behaviour.Bas-moz commentedon Nov 18, 2024
Based on the earlier comments it seems the standard looks reasonable.
As to the extend of timing leakage, which was discussed, we can apply the appropriate amount of jitter/clamping as we do with many other timings, and this in itself does not make for a concern with the standard.
As per Sean's comment, the shadow tree issue has also been resolved in the original standard.
I suggest our position here should be positive.
zcorpan commentedon Nov 18, 2024
Is there an issue for moving this spec into the Web Performance WG (or somewhere else)?
Bas-moz commentedon Dec 18, 2024
See: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2024Dec/0005.html
This now lives here: https://w3c.github.io/element-timing/
keithamus commentedon Jan 7, 2025
bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1940239