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

RE: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?

From: Karen Anderson (IE) <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:14:51 +0000
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
CC: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "cam@mcc.id.au" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <18D01621E7D58B4CA8BA9DDBD0D8B12C038B247C@TK5EX14MBXC286.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Right, I wasn't suggesting changing to window.performance.now() which doesn't exist.  I was just saying that I would make the update to remove any references to the animationStartTime.

-Karen

From: James Robinson [mailto:jamesr@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:44 PM
To: Karen Anderson (IE)
Cc: Jatinder Mann; cam@mcc.id.au; public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: Re: [requestAnimationFrame] Spec to LC?


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Karen Anderson (IE) <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com<mailto:Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com>> wrote:
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.

Exactly - I think we want to spec something in that sort of namespace, but since it's not here yet we should probably hold off on adding references it to test suites.

- James


Thanks,
Karen

From: Karen Anderson (IE) [mailto:Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com<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: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 19:15:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 February 2012 19:15:30 GMT