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

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

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 22:08:57 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTim0YEmMwTeVzUV5A_zef9kPqQSV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 5/2/11 10:17 PM, Jatinder Mann wrote:
>
>> It's important that we have normative text describing the number of
>> callbacks should match the refresh rate of the display.
>>
>
> As a should-level requirement, sure.


The words "normative" and "should" are mutually exclusive.  I agree that
browser should (and likely will, regardless of what we do) schedule these
callbacks to match the refresh rate of the display whenever possible, but
text in a specification that uses the word "should" instead of "must" is by
definition not a normative requirement.  We can't always promise that the
callbacks will be invoked at the refresh rate of the display and so I feel
this is a quality of implementation issue.

- James
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 05:09:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 May 2011 05:09:23 GMT