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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:50:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBriFhRAgoT3ozG8SyB3BPBYosrVbWk=wDmn-8z+Ead8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois 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, Fran├žois 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

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