LGTM2

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 7:59 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> LGTM1
>
> On Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 4:56:04 PM UTC+1 Michal Mocny wrote:
>
> Yes, on top of.  startTime is defined in terms of renderTime which is now
> defined in terms of paint/presentation times.
>
> So this just exposes the individual values that were already used for the
> calculations.
>
>
> Thank you! exposing those on top of the current attributes means that
> there's no real compat risk here. Firefox being supportive significantly
> reduces interop risk.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 3, 2025 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-5 Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
> I should know this but do I understand correctly and this is adding
> `paintTime` and `presentationTime` *on top* of existing attributes such as
> `renderTime`/`startTime`/etc?
>
> On Thursday, November 27, 2025 at 11:49:01 AM UTC+1 Chromestatus wrote:
>
> *Contact emails*
> [email protected], [email protected]
>
>
>
> *Explainer*
> https://github.com/w3c/paint-timing/blob/main/presentation-timestamps.md
>
> *Specification*
> https://w3c.github.io/paint-timing/#painttimingmixin
>
> *Summary*
> Expose "paintTime" and "presentationTime" in element timing, LCP, long
> animation frames, and paint timing. "paintTime" means the time when the
> rendering phase ended and the browser started the paint phase.
> "presentationTime" means the time when the "pixels reached the screen",
> which is somewhat implementation-defined. This feature entry omits event
> timing, which would be done separately.
>
> *Blink component*
> Blink>PerformanceAPIs
> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EPerformanceAPIs%22>
>
> *Web Feature ID*
> performancetiming <https://webstatus.dev/features/performancetiming>
>
> *Motivation*
> So far the spec defined the paint time as the time after the "rendering
> update", when the document hands over rendering to the UA. However, in
> chromium the exposed paint time (in event timing, element timing, LCP and
> paint-timing) was different - the approximated VSync time from the
> compositor, which is important in terms of UX. This created confusion and
> incompatibility This proposal defines both these timestamps, and exposes
> them in an identical way in all the relevant entries.
>
> *Initial public proposal*
> https://github.com/w3c/paint-timing/issues/62
>
> *TAG review*
> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1013
>
> *TAG review status*
> Pending
>
> *Risks*
>
>
> *Interoperability and Compatibility*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Gecko*: Positive (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/
> issues/1110) Firefox folks took part of the WebPerfWG meeting where this
> was discussed/resolved.
>
> *WebKit*: In development (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-
> positions/issues/426)
>
> *Web developers*: No signals
>
> *Other signals*:
>
> *WebView application risks*
>
> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that
> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
> *No information provided*
>
>
> *Debuggability*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac,
> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?*
> Yes
>
> *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>?*
> No
>
>
> *Flag name on about://flags*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Finch feature name*
> PaintTimingMixin
>
> *Rollout plan*
> Will ship enabled for all users
>
> *Requires code in //chrome?*
> False
>
> *Tracking bug*
> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/378827535
>
> *Estimated milestones*
> Shipping on desktop144 Shipping on Android144 Shipping on WebView144
>
> *Anticipated spec changes*
>
> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or
> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues
> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may
> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of
> the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
> None. This is already part of interop 2025. Note that the TAG review was
> delayed because some things in the explainer were missing initially.
>
> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5162859838046208?gate=5137700305502208
>
> *Links to previous Intent discussions*
> Intent to Prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/
> chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/67347e70.2b0a0220.3644d.
> 01e9.GAE%40google.com
>
>
> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status
> <https://chromestatus.com>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "blink-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2f9f3215-7039-4248-976a-b9cb398bded6n%40chromium.org
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/2f9f3215-7039-4248-976a-b9cb398bded6n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOMQ%2Bw9t0LnJdc-9peR4pnSV%2Bjbhyt1e5e4QG7UOk8jtXti6Hw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to