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

Re: [RequestAnimationFrame] Issues list

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:46:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD73md+pvsfczYywuaOrpWP4P9PPmtDGKjSjm+j6b01Fx_jWzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> I put together the issues list for Timing control for script-based
> animations since we're moving it to CR:
>   http://www.w3.org/2013/02/raf-issues.html
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Feb/0070.html
>  I don't see a rational for not using a partial interface in the thread.
> Did we forget this one?

I think we just forgot.  Looks like an editorial change.  Cameron, could
you make this change (you're much more likely to get a WebIDL change right
than me).  If not I'd be happy to take a crack at it.

> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Jul/0001.html
>   "Should requestAnimationFrame tick on display:none iframes?"
>  This one is linked to the issue I raised on October 10 regarding page
> visibility. As such, no clarification is needed (except in the CSS
> Working Group).

That's my understanding as well.  No changes require in the spec.

>   Do we have a test for this btw? Not required for us to move to LC but
> would be good to have before moving to PR.
> 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Jan/0009.html
>  I'm assuming this one is out of scope for this version at least. Unless
> someone else replies, I'll do so.

Seems out of scope to me.

- James

> Philippe
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 00:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:34 UTC