- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:45:48 -0400
- To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On 4/10/13 6:32 PM, James Robinson wrote: > 1.) Gmail loads up a large portion of its script in an iframe styled to > be 0x0. While this iframe is not display:none, it's hidden for any > practical definition of hidden. That's not quite true. For example, it has a well-defined CSS viewport and hence can do media queries and selector matching and other CSS things, unlike a display:none iframe... > If animations on hidden iframes did not tick, script that ran inside this > iframe would not be able to animate parts of the rest of gmail UI. I > think this behavior would be broken. You could make the same argument about scripts in one tab that try to script another one that they opened, no? > The common problem here is that the visibility of the document > associated with the global context that requestAnimationFrame is picked > up from is a poor proxy for the visibility of the thing the author is > actually trying to animate. But that's not iframe-specific. > context and document a bit more explicit, but it's possible that > wouldn't have helped. I doubt it would have changed how authors think about it. In any case, I doubt that at this point we're going to agree on this issue... -Boris
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 00:46:19 UTC