- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:21:54 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:28:18 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> That means that if a page wants to only do certain actions when >> displayed, it has to first check it's .hidden state, then walk up the >> element.ownerDocument.defaultView.frameElement chain and at each >> element use CSSOM to check if the iframe is hidden (which off the top >> of my head I don't remember the API for). >> >> This seems severely more complex than simply checking .hidden. Does >> anyone know of any webpages that we can check to see if they do this? >> >> What is the benefit of this approach? > > Are you also going to check for it being positioned off-screen, See my response regarding "below the fold" earlier in this thread. > visibility:hidden, This is a good question indeed. What would be the best for web pages? There is one argument that visibility:hidden iframes aren't truly hidden. They still take up space. And if the iframe is seamless that means that it actually affects the layout of the parent page. > et cetera? It seems somewhat weird to have a display:none > special case in this API. You didn't answer my question of what would the benefit be of *not* taking display:none into account? Specifically, what would the benefit be to web developers? / Jonas
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 17:22:51 UTC