> On Mar 1, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Noam Rosenthal <n...@webkit.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:18 AM Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com 
> <mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Noam Rosenthal <n...@webkit.org 
>> <mailto:n...@webkit.org>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:21 AM Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com 
>> <mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Noam Rosenthal <n...@webkit.org 
>>> <mailto:n...@webkit.org>> wrote:
>>> The first visually non-empty milestone almost always happens way before 
>>> this point. The above is just a fallback to make sure we eventually hit 
>>> this milestone. For example, if a document is totally blank even after 
>>> loading the document and all subresources, we want to paint it instead of 
>>> waiting forever.
>>> The visually non-empty heuristic is elsewhere.
>>> Note that WebKit would consider the paint triggered by the above fallback 
>>> code to be both a first paint and “first visually non-empty paint” or 
>>> “first meaningful paint”, which somewhat corresponds to Chrome’s notion of 
>>> “first contentful paint”.
>>> First paint can only happen earlier under even more unusual circumstances, 
>>> I believe there is a timeout after which we will paint even if all we can 
>>> paint is blank white or background color.
>>>> But let's take the specifics to Slack/bugzilla?
>>> I think it would be good for you to talk to people who understand WebKit’s 
>>> layout/paint milestones in detail before taking things to bugzilla. Ask on 
>>> Slack, and I’ll point you to the right people.
>>> Oops, just saw this, an initial (not for review) patch is already in 
>>> bugzilla :)
>>> But I'll continue the discussion - I have better idea of what to ask now.
>>> Who would be the right people to ask?
>> Alan, Simon, and Ryosuke should all know about this.
>> Awesomeness.
>> A few of us sat down and reviewed this spec. We think that, as written, the 
>> definition of “first contentful paint” is underspecified and in some cases 
>> buggy. For example, it says a “non-white canvas” should count as contentful. 
>> But canvases don’t start as white, they start as fully transparent black 
>> (all zeros). And checking the color of every pixel in a canvas is expensive. 
>> The intent here is probably that a canvas that has ever been painted into is 
>> contentful (or one that has been painted into more recently than the last 
>> time it was cleared).
>> Yes, I also thought that part of the spec was strange. I'll help revise it.
>> btw the FirstMeaningfulPaint in webkit doesn't look at canvas content at all 
>> - rather on the creation of a RenderCanvasElement... maybe being closer to 
>> the spec here would be better rendering-wise? Also, the current layout 
>> milestones doen't consider background images as "rendered pixels". Is that 
>> on purpose?
> We think background images (and SVG, if not included yet) should count as 
> meaningful content. And canvases should probably be limited to non-empty ones.
> OK - that's more like the spec.
>> In any case, it definitely does not match the WebKit notion of first 
>> visually non-empty layout / first meaningful paint, in some cases in ways 
>> that we regret.
>> Regret, as in - it was better if the spec was closer to what webkit was 
>> doing?
> No, I mean in some cases we think we should do what the spec says.
>> I think it's OK if the spec's FCP and webkit's FMP are not the same, and if 
>> FCP is fired according to spec, and after the actual painting in webkit was 
>> done. 
> I think we should try to align with the spec. Otherwise, because WebKit 
> usually won’t paint at all until webkit-FMP time, FCP won’t fire until that 
> time (since it is only fired when an actual paint happens).
>> Spec issues to follow.
>> We also think exposing “first paint” is harmful and we’d rather not 
>> implement it. We don’t agree that painting non-contentful content quickly is 
>> a good idea, either for browsers or for websites. And this API will 
>> inevitably be used to compare browsers, regardless of disclaimers that it 
>> shouldn’t be.
>> Harmful in the sense of comparing browsers? I don't think it can, regardless 
>> of disclaimers - since the hardware used for the browsers (at least on 
>> mobile) is vastly different, and also the networks. How about exposing a 
>> prefixed entry? e.g. "-webkit-first-paint" - something that doesn't try to 
>> seem comparable? The goal here is to help people optimize their site and 
>> make sure it doesn't regress on webkit, rather than create meaningless 
>> cross-browser comparisons... 
> We will probably take up our complaint in the form of a spec issue. In the 
> meantime, it would be nice if first paint was controlled by a separate flag.
>> In any case even having first-contentful-paint would be useful - with or 
>> without first-paint.
>> It’s probably unwise to implement this until the spec is fixed. And once it 
>> is, we should change our “first visually non-empty layout” notion to match 
>> it before exposing the corresponding paint timing milestone.
>> Not sure that's necessary. We can match the spec without changing the way we 
>> render. For example, “first visually non-empty layout" needs a minimum 
>> amount of pixels/characters - do we want to change the spec to have this 
>> heuristic, or change that heuristic in webkit, or neither?
> We want to change one or both of them to match, if at all possible.
> OK, to summarize what I got from this
> - we want the spec and webkit painting to be as close as possible
> - The spec needs to be clearer/less buggy about a few things, such as "White" 
> canvas, spec issues to be files
> - WebKit should be closer to the spec wrt canvas, backgrounds and potentially 
> pixel/character threshold (TBD)
> - FP is more sensitive than FCP, because it exposes browser differences and 
> may lead to unwanted comparisons and misunderstanding. Thus, it should be 
> exposed as a different runtime feature flag.
> One thing I'm wondering about - would it be better to change the rendering 
> heuristics together with implementing the paint API reporting? Or would it be 
> better to separate those concerns a bit in terms of implementation? I mean, 
> having the performance APIs in the code behind 2 flags with failed tests 
> conforming to the spec might help iterate on the actual rendering. What would 
> you consider a better approach here?

If I were doing this myself, I’d first change rendering heuristics (probably 
without a flag) and then add the web-facing API.

What you describe might be reasonable if there are WPT conformance tests that 
can distinguish cases where the FCP timing is too late or too soon. It’s 
probably possible to make such tests, but I am not sure if they already exist.

- Maciej

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to