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

Re: requestAnimationFrame

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:47:08 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpGtz+COR-TpE37TQEkr3ZEZBy1foJmLQk=nMu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, robert@ocallahan.org, "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> Darin Fisher:
> > How about just running the callback once the tab becomes visible again?
>  It
> > will run, but just not unless there is reason to animate/paint.
>
> I can imagine a situation where you have an animation that goes for,
> say, 10 seconds, and once the animation finishes something else happens.
> The 1 second maximum period seems useful in this case, because you might
> make the tab visible again for a long time, but you expect the
> “something else” to happen.  It’s pretty natural to do the checking for
> whether the animation has gone past its end time within the callback.
>
> (You might say though that for important “something elses”, these
> shouldn’t be keyed off an animation which might be throttled down
> severely.)


What's an acutal example where you might want this that couldn't just wait
until the tab was visible again? This use-case doesn't seem very common. As
you say, it's also probably not well met due to throttling.

Ojan
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 23:47:58 GMT

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