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

Re: [AnimationRequestFrame] Initial editor's draft of AnimationRequestFrame spec available

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:51:24 +1200
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, public-web-perf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110503035124.GA22710@wok.mcc.id.au>
Jatinder Mann:
> > 4. More information is needed on the sample() method of the
> > FrameRequestCallback interface.  A non-normative example use case
> > would be appropriate.

James Robinson:
> I'm not sure quite what you mean - FrameRequestCallback should be
> invisible to the users of the API and exists mostly as a way to talk
> about the enqueued callbacks within the specification.  Users will just
> pass in a function to requestAnimationFrame.  Is there a better way to
> spec this, Cameron?

I have an open bug on Web IDL to consider adding function types:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12385

but in the meantime, how it is specified at the moment is fine.
[Callback] actually means that you could write either

  requestAnimationFrame(function(time) { ... });

or

  requestAnimationFrame({ sample: function(time) { ... } });

[Callback=FunctionOnly] disallows the latter form, if that’s what we’d
prefer.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 03:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 May 2011 03:52:09 GMT