W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2013

Re: requestAnimationFrame behavior on display:none iframes

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:33:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD73mdK9SrJyOz4T13CJeHqDGcntCJFgM19LDbhoZO9-qVW2YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I replied on the original thread.  Can we continue the discussion there to
avoid forking the thread?  Thanks.

- James


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 4/10/13 3:49 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>
>> Seeing that requestAnimationFrame is using the Page Visibility
>> definition of visibility
>>
>
> The problem, again, is that the Page Visibility definition was only done
> that way because I was told it would NOT be used for things like this. The
> Page Visibility definition is useful for being able to deal with media
> playback (which is not intrinsically tied to "visibility" in the case of
> audio, for example, but may well be tied to "attention", which is more what
> Page Visibility tries to capture).
>
>
>  As such, no further change will be made to the specification. Let us
>> know if you're dissatisfied by the outcome and would like to object.
>>
>
> I would like to object to using the Page Visibility definition of
> visibility for requestAnimationFrame, yes.
>
> -Boris
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 22:33:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:35 UTC