- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:25:47 +0200
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:10:45 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> "skip"? Do you mean if there is a detectable delay before the new frame >> shows up? What's the use case for this? The waiting event for the >> network serves this purpose if the delay is because of the network. For >> decoding, however, it's quite difficult to know how long it's going to >> take before it's done, so we will simply always fire it. Is there any >> browser that does things differently or plans to? The spec could >> certainly be clearer on what a UA behavior is allowed here. > > The use case is not having flickering UI (blinking the word "seeking...") > if it's not necessary. If it would be helpful, I can make the spec more > explicitly queue the task to fire "seeking" and then abort the send if by > the time the task is ready, the seek is complete, or some such. You get unwanted flickering UI anyway if the seek takes 1ms instead of 0ms. I think it's better if sites implement the logic for flickering avoidance (e.g. with a timeout and transisions) than the UA sometimes not firing an event. Having the event sometimes not fire seems like a surprising and hard to debug behavior for authors. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 06:26:35 UTC