W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css-display]? Compositing, expensive things, and laziness

From: 一丝 <yiorsi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:46:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+-d5Zq-4R3fUxi=5kbDJRfbk1s2OOZ_4V63wzTxkiEz972wvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
UA does not know how to implement cost?


以上
一丝


2013/6/20 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Now, the proposal:
> >
> > We'd like to propose a way for an author to tag an element as being
> > "lazy" or "optional" in some sense, such that it's okay to let it lag
> > other things in displaying in situations like what I outline above.
> > This would be merely a rendering hint, with no direct effect
> > otherwise.
>
> Ali has just produced a nice-looking spec proposal for this:
> <
> https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1JtUflBaj6_MjAzsDhtoEoxiYCxQXzSvzAw3NWpxTwvk/edit
> >
>
> The gist of it is that you can declare an element to be "optional",
> which just means that it SHOULD be rendered, but may do so late and
> not in-sync with the rest of the stuff on screen.  I think this is
> sufficiently generic to not accidentally bake in current
> implementation details, while still being relatively clear and useful.
>
> Additionally, it defines two events for when an optional element is
> rendered or unrendered, so you can show/hide cheap placeholders.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 05:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC