W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Proposal for a page visibility API

From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:09:49 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikU2SnejnckTkkytZuDk9YbvsD6A_KG=jS2ToqU@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 1/20/11 5:02 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>    * Values returned by all conforming implementations
>>         * “visible” : the full-size page content may be at least
>>    partially visible on at least one screen.
>> More simply, "the full-size page content may be at least partially
>> visible".
>>         * “hidden” : the full-size page content is not visible to the
>>    user at all.
> So an iframe that's scrolled out of view could return "hidden" if the
> browser wants?

You're right that this is a complexity that the spec doesn't provide any
guidance on.  I'm having a hard time figuring out if any one specific way of
specifying it makes sense in all (or even most) cases.  Does anyone have
suggestions on which way should be preferred, or if it should remain
implicitly left up to implementations to decide?

> Why is "full-size" in there?  If I have a background set to -moz-element
> for some element, but am scaling it down to half-size or whatnot, why should
> it not be considered "visible"?  Note that this is not the same as
> "preview"; the page is just being shown at some size that's clearly not a
> thumbnail but not "full-size".
> Heck, if the user zooms the page is no longer shown "full-size"...

I originally added "full-size" to help differentiate between the "preview"
visibility state, but you're very right that it's confusing.  I'll just
remove it from the current draft.

> -Boris
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 20:10:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:29 UTC