W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: requestAnimationFrame

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:26:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4CE1EBBD.9070502@mit.edu>
To: "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/15/10 7:45 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
> Does it matter? What happens now? Now, with setInterval there is no
> connection to rendering. I set the code to update one element to have an
> interval of 16 and another to have an interval of 100. If the first one
> makes the second one visible that doesn't effect whether or not the
> second one's set interval function gets called. If there was a
> setIntervalIfVisible and that behavior was browser independent how would
> that make things worse than they are today?

Well... we're trying to make things _better_, not "no worse".

> I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not seeing the issue.
> Certainly I'd like various areas to be updated together, or in sync

Yes, that was one of the two main motivations for 
mozRequestAnimationFrame.  Apart from the throttling (which is easy), 
this is by far the most important thing with the API.

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 02:26:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT