- From: Savil Srivastava <Savil.Srivastava@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:51:39 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
As far as things go, yes, this isn't a particularly difficult to implement API expansion. However, I respectfully disagree that it doesn't have costs involved -- there are always costs of testing the extra API surface, and maintaining it over the course of the next many years. There's also the cognitive cost of people wondering why we have two ways of doing the same thing. In general, though, would you not agree that it is a bad principle to overload APIs without new functional benefits? -----Original Message----- From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:56 AM To: public-web-perf@w3.org Subject: Re: ISSUE-7: FrameRequestCallback interface should be designated as Callback=FunctionOnly [Request Animation Frame] On 6/1/11 7:54 PM, Savil Srivastava wrote: > Here, my main concern is that we would be expanding the API surface area In a way that imposes no particular penalties on implementations, right? Why is this a problem? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 21:52:07 UTC