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

RE: [PageVisibility] Feedback

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:59:24 +0000
To: "Anne van Kesteren (annevk@opera.com)" <annevk@opera.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE4C13A1D11CFA49A58343DE361B0B041370A87B@TK5EX14MBXC252.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> I'm not sure what email software is being used, but the one in use makes it extremely unclear where the response begins.
I'm using Outlook. I'll try to indent for clarity.

> The problem is that HTML can then no longer introduce document.hidden similarly to document.dir if we wanted to.
We may not want to give developers the ability to not render the entire page. However, in the future if we strongly feel like supporting that concept, seeing that the hidden attribute is already a boolean, we can consider making it settable and supporting the new feature. 

> Could you give a pointer?
This was the discussion I was referring to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Aug/0012.html. 

> I assume I get another reply when that is done?
Yes, I will send a mail when that section has been added.

Jatinder


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:16 AM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: Re: [PageVisibility] Feedback

I'm not sure what email software is being used, but the one in use makes it extremely unclear where the response begins.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:52:42 +0100, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> 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.

The problem is that HTML can then no longer introduce document.hidden similarly to document.dir if we wanted to.


> 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.

Could you give a pointer?


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

I assume I get another reply when that is done?


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



Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 19:01:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 February 2012 19:01:17 GMT