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

Perhaps no spec change is needed.

The prevailing fear is that "Closed as Designed" persistently remains so
(before you started describing it as a "bug" currently).  Which may mean no
resolution till IE12, IE13, etc.  As an incentive for all browser vendors
to stick to W3C recommendation, people are recommending specific web
browsers when viewing my TestUFO website.

-- 
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=74717007&postcount=17#post74717007
metareferential says "Use Chrome"
-- 
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=74973983&postcount=45#post74973983
SneakyStephan says "Also the vertical scrolling test reminds me of why I
ditched firefox for chrome" (NOTE: this was FireFox 23, before FF24+ Beta
added 120Hz support)
 --
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=76292091&postcount=1#post76292091
Raticus79 says "Go to this web page in Chrome (120 FPS-friendly browser)"
-- http://goo.gl/QFltfz (shortened URL for a long Google Search URL)
Hundreds of forum posts have already been made by me, that recommends using
Chrome or another browser for TestUFO:

Once the only remaining major browser (out of the 5 major browsers) fall in
line with W3C recommendation of syncing rAF() to refresh, then I (as a
power forum poster, >10,000 posts, owner of BlurBusters and TestUFO, forum
moderator) people including myself can stop steering people towards
specific web browsers.  This does a disservice to standardization.  The
sooner that all browsers fall in line with W3C, the better, as people have
steered thousands of people away from IE when using TestUFO.

Appreciated,
Mark Rejhon


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  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****
>