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

Re: requestAnimationFrame behavior on display:none iframes

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <511EBB25.8030308@mit.edu>
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
CC: public-web-perf@w3.org
On 2/15/13 1:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/15/13 1:51 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>> Sounds like feedback to provide for the PageVisibility specification.
> Oh, I did.  It was more or less ignored by the editors under the heading
> of "keeping things simple", which I suppose is better than things being
> useful.

Let me be more clear.

The way PageVisibility was done picked a simple-to-specify and 
simple-to-implement and better than nothing but worse than it could be 
definition of "hidden".

I didn't have the energy to fight the stop energy on that topic, because 
it just wasn't that important to me in the end, but I strongly believe 
that requiring requestAnimationFrame to tick in iframes that do not have 
a CSS box is wrong, and I object to the spec requiring that behavior. 
That does mean we can't use the "hidden" definition from PageVisibility, 
but that's what we get for having a poor definition of "hidden" in that 

Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 22:48:35 UTC

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