- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 18:57:53 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> 2.To increase adoption of the requestFrameAnimation(), it should be >> syntactically similar to window.setInterval() or window.setTimeout(). >> This means that in addition to taking a FrameRequestCallback, we should >> also allow inline script and additional arguments. > > I actually disagree on this. Additional arguments add a lot of bookkeeping > for a very rarely used edge case; authors who need that edge case can use a > closure explicitly. Also, note that allowing pass-through arguments here > would preclude later adding an optional element argument unless we bake that > optional element argument into the very first spec version. > > Similarly, I don't think we should allow string arguments: they're a > security antipattern and we shouldn't add more such. I agree with Boris here. I don't think that converting your code to not use strings will be a big hurdle for adoption. Also, allowing passing strings means giving authors a great tool for slowing down the page since executing a string is slower than executing a function. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 01:58:57 UTC