- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:04:57 -0400
- To: public-web-perf@w3.org, roc@ocallahan.org
On 7/6/11 5:56 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > James was saying on the call today that he hasn’t encountered content so > far that would be tripped up by not invoking the callback in the > background tab. > > Boris or Rob, do you have any further thoughts on whether it would be > safe to mandate not invoking the callbacks in the background? On a general note, we have tried to make requestAnimationFrame behave like other animations, including CSS animations, CSS transitions, and SMIL animations. In particular, its behavior should probably be similar to animation/transition end events and SMIL events. Is there agreement on that much? If so, then the real question is whether all those events can be delayed indefinitely in background tabs. > One thing that just occurred to me is that the Page Visibility spec is > conservative in that implementations must not indicate that a page is > invisible if it is in fact visible, but that it is allowed to indicate > that a page is visible if it is not (since it may be difficult to know > for sure). It seems like, to be consistent with that, implementations > would need to be allowed to continue firing requestAnimationFrame > callbacks for background pages if they wanted. Indeed. The visibility state and the throttling are tied together in Gecko's case, for what it's worth. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 22:05:35 UTC