- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:12:02 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On 8/25/13 10:02 AM, Arvind Jain wrote: >>> >>> "hidden" would mean the document is not visible to the user. >> >> >> As in definitely not visible. >> >> That is, we would allow cases when the document is not actually visible, >> but the visibility state is still "visible", right? > > I think we have to go with this definition. For example, I don't think we > want to say that a document is hidden if it's obscured by a > position:absolute div or if it's in an opacity:0 container. I'm picturing > that, in practice, we'd only report hidden if the frame is hidden due to > being outside the visible part of the top-level document (i.e. it's in the > overflow). We'd still want to say that the iframe is hidden if it has an ancestor which is display:none, right? / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 18:13:00 UTC