- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:30:31 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, James Ross <w3c-20040125@james-ross.co.uk>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote: > > I think there's a big opportunity to substantially improve scroll > > performance on the web in the relatively short term by doing something > > incremental. I.e. I'm pretty sure I can get major scroll-blocking > libraries > > like Google Analytics to opt into the pattern proposed here in a > relatively > > short timeframe. I'm much less sure I could get them to switch to a > > completely new event API in any sort of reasonable timeframe. > > Either way they need to branch their code, no? > Yeah, but the way it's defined now it's 2 small lines of extra JS for them: http://rbyers.github.io/EventListenerOptions/EventListenerOptions.html#example_2 We've also already got a lot of support for this incremental approach from some IE and Mozilla folks (I've reached out to Safari folks privately, but nothing public yet). I probably should have reached out to this list long ago - sorry about that (I was mainly focused from the input scenario side, for quite awhile it was looking like we'd prefer a CSS API instead of something like this). That said, I like the look of your proposal (though not sure what exactly filter and marker would do). If you think it's something that's practical accomplish in a reasonable time frame then I'm all for it. Is it fully polyfillable? I just don't think this tiny tweak should be the thing that necessitates such a major API change. > What do you think about an incremental path? I don't see any fundamental > > reason that things need to change drastically. > > Overloading a boolean argument with a dictionary seems bad. And if we > are to have a new API anyway, we might as well pick the better names. > We could just add a 4th argument for now (a dictionary or even just a boolean) if you think that's better to keep the changes absolutely minimal until this larger rework can be done. > If we can get consensus on the basic approach, then I'd be happy to rework > > my proposal in the form of a pull-request and move all issue tracking to > > whatwg/dom. There's probably no point in doing that until we have an > > agreement on the basic API shape, right? > > Fair. > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 15:31:17 UTC