- From: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:37:33 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, John Resig <jeresig@gmail.com>
Hi Boris, Happy to help wherever I can. While I'm not actively involved in the jQuery project any more, I can help with reviewing animation proposals. I started jQuery UI and wrote the animation extensions for it. For the current implementation of animate(), I've cc'ed John Resig. John, do you see a feasible way of "upgrading" animate() to use requestAnimationFrame? Thanks, Paul Am 24.08.11 07:13 schrieb "Boris Zbarsky" unter <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>: >On 8/17/11 2:22 AM, James Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu >> <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote: >> Or put another way, we _do_ want jQuery to build animate() on top of >> requestAnimationFrame and we do _not_ want to break the huge amount >> of deployed content that's using animate() and was perfectly fine >> with the behavior it used to have. The question is how animate() >> can implement the behavior it used to have on top of >> requestAnimationFrame. >> >> That's a good way to put it. One counterargument is that jQuery (or >> other authors) could implement the behavior you describe with a >> combination of requestAnimationFrame, page visibility, and timers. > >Maybe we should start by contacting the jQuery folks then.... > >(Sorry for the lag; I was on vacation.) > >-Boris >
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 10:38:18 UTC