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.

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