- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:48:05 -0500
- 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 specification... -Boris
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 22:48:35 UTC