W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > June 2011

RE: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame]

From: Savil Srivastava <Savil.Srivastava@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:35:41 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
CC: Web Performance Working Group WG <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21FB391336E14A4DAB4C2C116B9B86AF178EDDF7@TK5EX14MBXC118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Hi Olli,

It would be helpful if you could provide a scenario where this capability is useful in the context of RequestAnimationFrame. Highlighting how that scenario could not be achieved via FunctionOnly callbacks or why it is more desirable than the FunctionOnly approach would also be much appreciated. This would make it easier to drive a decision (either way).

Thanks,
Savil

________________________________________
From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [public-web-perf-request@w3.org] on behalf of Cameron McCormack [cam@mcc.id.au]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Olli Pettay
Cc: Web Performance Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated  as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame]

Olli Pettay:
> It is not. In event handling
> foo.addEventListener("bar_event", { handleEvent: function(e) {}}, true);
> has proved to be useful.

I don’t know if it has proved to be useful, since it doesn’t really buy
you much over using a plain Function object, but DOM Events probably
needs to keep allowing this.  My impression is that new specifications
tend to use use [Callback=FunctionOnly] more than [Callback].

--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 16:18:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 June 2011 16:18:35 GMT