RE: [RequestAnimationFrame] Extensive tests with 120Hz monitors. Successful in 4 out of 5 browsers. Proposed W3C draft change.

As we had discussed, clamping the callback rate is a bug in the IE implementation which we will consider fixing, especially seeing that 120Hz monitors are now starting to become a bit more common. I don't believe the spec needs any further clarifications here.

Thanks,
Jatinder

From: blurbusters@gmail.com [mailto:blurbusters@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Rejhon
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:34 PM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RequestAnimationFrame] Extensive tests with 120Hz monitors. Successful in 4 out of 5 browsers. Proposed W3C draft change.

> It sounds like you are describing a quality of implementation issue, not a
> spec issue.  Please report the bug to the vendor of the buggy implementation.
> Your proposed text has no normative requirement changes
> (i.e. no MUST statements) and isn't a statement of conformance, so I do not
> think it would be beneficial.  Text in a spec cannot fix bugs in
> implementations.
> - James

I already reported to the vendor.

1. I reported via IE's bug tracker system.
https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/794072/internet-explorer-animations-fails-on-120hz-computer-monitors-works-at-60hz-75hz-100hz?siteID=rGMTN56tf_w-1PqoBW8wrx7DKpzuXQ.Wbg
Microsoft closed this as "As Designed".

2. I have a back-and-fourth correspondence with Jatinder Mann (about 10 replies).
My interpretation was that it is a mis-interpretation of the W3C recommendation.

The two main key issues appeared to be:
- "Battery/efficiency". This is not an issue, as there are no impact on non-120Hz systems
- "No human-visible benefit" -- This is not correct, as this is an assumption.

These are already mentioned in the W3C documentation, but my perception is that this is incorrectly interpreted by one browser vendor, and thus a standard modification is needed.

Sincerely,
Mark Rejhon