Re: making page visibility a property of document instead of top level browsing context

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:

> Boris, that's right.
>
> Ojan, I'm not sure about what you said. Why should the browser not make
> the best attempt to decide whether the iframe content is visible or not?
> Is there a reason not to return "hidden" in the two cases you listed?
>
Because there's a near infinite number of ways you could hide the iframe.
Better IMO to be simple and just look at the intersection of the iframe
with the viewport rect than to address a relatively random subset of the
many ways you could cause the frame to not be visible.

> Arvind
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/13 10:02 AM, Arvind Jain wrote:
>>
>>> "hidden" would mean the document is not visible to the user.
>>>
>>
>> As in definitely not visible.
>>
>> That is, we would allow cases when the document is not actually visible,
>> but the visibility state is still "visible", right?
>
>
> I think we have to go with this definition. For example, I don't think we
> want to say that a document is hidden if it's obscured by a
> position:absolute div or if it's in an opacity:0 container. I'm picturing
> that, in practice, we'd only report hidden if the frame is hidden due to
> being outside the visible part of the top-level document (i.e. it's in the
> overflow).
>