- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:44:56 -0700
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation actually feel that it would be? / Jonas On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr> wrote: > Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old > TR/? > > -- Mounir > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, at 20:36, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: >> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >> On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>> It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes >> >>> something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested >> >>> it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). >> >> So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the >> >> Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version >> >> and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is >> >> published. >> >> >> >> Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are: >> >> >> >> 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getting broader >> >> consensus on the resolution >> >> >> >> 2. Publish the LC "as is" >> >> >> >> 3. Publish the LC "as is" but explicitly highlight this Issue and ask >> >> for Implementer/Developer feedback >> >> >> >> 4. Other options? >> >> >> >> Of course, I'd like to hear from others but I tend to think we should >> >> first try #1 (especially since Anne indicates the spec and at least one >> >> implementations are currently not aligned). >> >> >> >> Mounir, Marcos - would you please work with Anne on a mutually agreeable >> >> solution? >> > Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is >> > what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification: >> > "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative >> > order within that task, see bug 26440." >> > >> > In my opinion, if the spec is changed to use "animation frame task", it >> > would not change much in the current state of things. >> >> Well, perhaps this would be true but the "devil's in the details" and >> the details do matter (see below). >> >> > Also, I'm not entirely sure why Anne is so loudly complaining about that >> > issue. The issue was not closed or waived but postponed until we can >> > properly hooked to the thing. LC doesn't freeze the specification and we >> > could definitely get this fixed before moving to CR. >> > >> > What I suggested to him on IRC and what I believe is the best approach >> > to reconcile the two worlds (WHATWG live standards and W3C snapshots) is >> > to take the current version of the spec to LC and update the ED to use >> > animation frame task and mark it as a WIP feature. I opened issue 75 >> > last week as a reminder to do that. >> > >> > Arthur, what do you think of that solution? >> >> We can certainly publish a LC with open issues (as was explicitly noted >> in the original CfC [1]). However, I do want to emphasize that if any >> "substantive" issue is filed after the LC is published, and the group >> agrees to address any such issue(s), the group must publish another LC >> before the spec can "move to CR". I mention this because LC<->LC loops >> are time consuming for the group, implementers and developers and thus >> should be avoided if possible. As such, it seems like pursuing #1 should >> be the next step. >> >> -Thanks, AB >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 18:45:54 UTC