- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:50:31 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:19 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> Again, read earlier in the thread. This exact question was raised by >> roc, and Ali answered him. I'm not as well qualified to answer this. > > I don't think our proposal have much in common, except the fact both use > rAF. Roc's proposal was about using the normal rAF to trigger the animation > in a delayed fashion (which does not work because you just delayed the > problem). That's not what I'm proposing. > > Maybe I didn't express my idea well, but I propose to use > > (1) the "display-optionality: optional" declaration to indicate the > rendering of the element is facultative. > (2) an element-tied rAF which only fires when an element has been painted > and is ready for his next frame. Okay, so you're just proposing a different name for the current proposed "optionalElementRendered" event, more or less. This lacks the "optionalElementNonRendered" case, and has the "fails in older browsers" behavior that roc wants to avoid. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 20:51:17 UTC