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

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> We'd still want to say that the iframe is hidden if it has an ancestor
> which is display:none, right?
>

Seems reasonable to me. It's not clear to me where exactly to draw the line.