- From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:10:41 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "arvind@google.com" <arvind@google.com>
Based on your feedback, I have updated the Page Visibility processing model. On 5/17/2012 5:26 PM, Boris wrote: > 1) When traversing _from_ session history entries browsers fire a _pagehide_ event. > But your spec text talks about firing a _pageshow_ event. There's a similar issue with > the events being reversed in teh traversing _to_ session history entries case. I made a mistake where I thought bfcache = session history. After a little more digging around, from http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/history.html#session-history-entry: The pageshow event is fired when traversing to a session history entry. The pagehide event is fired when traversing from a session history entry. And from https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Working_with_BFCache: The pagehide event tells you whether the page is going into bfcache; the pageshow tells you whether it's coming from bfcache. On 2/3/2012 12:12PM Boris wrote: > The reason I want to fire visibilitychange before pageshow and after pagehide is that: > 1) The latter preserves the invariant that it actually triggers on visibility state changes: it fires after we're actually hidden. > 2) The former preserves the general ordering of visibility changes and page show/hide. I have updated the spec to fire visibilitychange before pageshow and after pagehide, as you had suggested. On 5/17/2012 5:26 PM, Boris wrote: > 2) When unloading a document, why would a UA not end up in the " Else if the Document > contained by the top level browsing context is now not visible" branch if the if/else cascade? > Seems like it would, as the spec is currently written... I have fixed this by including the unloading statements as a part of the not visible statements. On 5/17/2012 5:26 PM, Boris wrote: > 3) The addition of pageshow/pagehide event firing in this spec would, if actually implemented, > make those events fire twice. That doesn't seem right. Instead of stating that the UA should fire the event, I now state "If traversing to a session history entry, run the following steps before running the step to fire the pageshow event." Likewise for pagehide. On 5/17/2012 5:26 PM, Boris wrote: > 4) The event firing for the "unloading document visibility change steps" > should not be restricted to the unloading of top-level documents, imo: > if a subframe document is unloaded its visibility should change to hidden. I have updated the processing model to not restrict the unloading steps to top-level documents. This step now applies to any document that is unloading. Thanks, Jatinder
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 23:11:42 UTC