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

Re: requestAnimationFrame behavior on display:none iframes

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:24:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_Rs8rWW_mDmae22c8C2RoarTWf9wkHZnAZgdwYvYixjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Nat Duca <nduca@chromium.org>
Can you elaborate on why you reached this conclusion?

Is the argument that the benefit of the saved battery usage and the
performance benefits of calling the rAF callbacks less often is smaller
than the downside of having CSSOM properties update less often inside the
iframe?

If so, what are the use cases that require those CSSOM properties to be
updated?

Additionally, the problem of having properties inside an iframe seems to
apply equally to cross tab references. So it seems like an argument to
never slow down the rAF callbacks, even for hidden tabs. Should we maybe go
that path?

Use cases would definitely help here.

/ Jonas
On Apr 10, 2013 9:50 PM, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> Nat, Boris,
>
> we reconsidered this issue during today's call following the email from
> Boris at
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Feb/0036.html
>
> [[
> Seeing that requestAnimationFrame is using the Page Visibility
> definition of visibility, at this time we don't believe we should expand
> requestAnimationFrame to include iframe visibility. As CSS properties
> can be queried through script, we don't feel that this is a missing
> piece. We are interested in further investigating an element visibility
> that can query the visibility state of elements on the page (e.g.,
> subdocuments, images, canvases, etc.). In rAF L2 spec, we can possibly
> reference the element visibility instead of page visibility. We can
> schedule a future conference call to discuss element visibility in more
> detail.
> ]]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Apr/0032.html
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 07:24:30 UTC

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