W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [PageVisibility] Feedback

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:52:42 +0000
To: "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com)" <annevk@opera.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE4C13A1D11CFA49A58343DE361B0B041370A3D6@TK5EX14MBXC252.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Closing loop on this thread. Thanks for the feedback.

1. The hidden attribute on Document is potentially confusing with the hidden attribute existing on all HTML elements, especially as the Document object sometimes shares such global HTML attributes (dir and numerous event handler attributes). Maybe isVisible would be better?
Though they have slightly different usage models, considering both hidden attributes convey the same general concept, both editors feel that the confusion will be limited. We will be keeping the current name.

2. visibilityState should presumably return a DOMString.
Yes, that was a typo. Spec has been updated to ensure visibilityState returns DOMString.

3. We use strings in a number of APIs and it is clearly a better approach however none of these APIs currently expose them as constants and I do not think there is a good reason to do that. Examples of such APIs are XMLHttpRequest (the responseType attribute) and the HTML Canvas 2D Context (numerous attributes).
The visibilityState attribute has been updated to be of type DOMString.

4. I think it would be better if the DOM dependency was on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as that is what we want implementors to implement.
Discussed in other messages on this thread.

5. Instead of using [NoInterfaceObject], a different interface name, and implements, please simply use "partial interface Document".
The spec has been updated to use "partial interface Document" instead of [NoInterfaceObject].

6. Thought I had just before sending, should this document say something about privacy implications?
Arvind is writing a section on the privacy implication.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:12 PM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: [PageVisibility] Feedback

1. The hidden attribute on Document is potentially confusing with the hidden attribute existing on all HTML elements, especially as the Document object sometimes shares such global HTML attributes (dir and numerous event handler attributes). Maybe isVisible would be better?

2. visibilityState should presumably return a DOMString.

3. We use strings in a number of APIs and it is clearly a better approach however none of these APIs currently expose them as constants and I do not think there is a good reason to do that. Examples of such APIs are XMLHttpRequest (the responseType attribute) and the HTML Canvas 2D Context (numerous attributes).

4. I think it would be better if the DOM dependency was on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as that is what we want implementors to implement.

5. Instead of using [NoInterfaceObject], a different interface name, and implements, please simply use "partial interface Document".

6. Thought I had just before sending, should this document say something about privacy implications?


--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/



Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:54:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:54:10 GMT