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

RE: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:53:15 +0000
To: "Karen Anderson (IE)" <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
CC: "cam@mcc.id.au" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE4C13A1D11CFA49A58343DE361B0B041370D7F3@TK5EX14MBXC252.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
There have been discussions about having a High Resolution Time spec that will define time in submillisecond resolution from the start of the navigation that can be used by Timing, rAF and other specs. A part of that discussion was to consider adding a performance.now() (or some other name) concept that would be similar to animationStartTime.

I think we should be safe to remove animationStartTime from the test suite and ensure the test suite tests conformance to the current version of the spec.

I am currently working on a draft for the High Resolution Time spec and will have it available for review in the next week or so.

Thanks,
Jatinder

From: Karen Anderson (IE)
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:43 PM
To: Karen Anderson (IE); James Robinson; Jatinder Mann
Cc: cam@mcc.id.au; public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: RE: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?

I remember now that we want to encourage the use of performance.now() which will be part of the high resolution time specification.  I'll make sure that references to the animationStartTime property are removed and updated.

Thanks,
Karen

From: Karen Anderson (IE) [mailto:Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com]<mailto:[mailto:Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:36 PM
To: James Robinson; Jatinder Mann
Cc: cam@mcc.id.au<mailto:cam@mcc.id.au>; public-web-perf@w3.org<mailto:public-web-perf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?

Hello,

Yes, porting the test suite on the IE Test Center to our working group will be a great start.  I should be able to have it ready for review in the next few weeks.  Regarding the animationStartTime property, it was once in the spec and there still are mentions of it in section 4.2 as an Editorial note to add it back.  There haven't been any discussions on this in a while.  What is the thinking on it now?  Seems to me that if we want to have a high precision time as input to our callback that we should have a method for getting a similarly high precision time independently as well.

Thoughts?
-Karen

From: James Robinson [mailto:jamesr@google.com]<mailto:[mailto:jamesr@google.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:53 PM
To: Jatinder Mann
Cc: cam@mcc.id.au<mailto:cam@mcc.id.au>; public-web-perf@w3.org<mailto:public-web-perf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com<mailto:jmann@microsoft.com>> wrote:
James, Cameron,

Do you feel that the requestAnimationFrame spec is ready to move to Last Call? In today's working group conf call, we were discussing the status of all specifications and noticed that there are no remaining open issues on this particular spec.

The IE Test Center has a few requestAnimationFrame tests from a few months ago - http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/#perfPaintNotification. I am looking to update the tests to match the current spec status and submit them for the requestAnimationFrame test suite in the near future.

Hello,

I've resolved the remaining open issues and think going to Last Call is a great idea.  I'm also excited about having a test suite.  http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/#perfPaintNotification looks like a good start, but it seems a bit out of date (for example it tests for a animationStartTime property that has never existed in a W3C spec).

- James


Thanks,
Jatinder
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 00:53:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 February 2012 00:53:52 GMT