- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:11:10 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
It'd be good to list specific cases where we want the property "hidden" to return true, and then additionally recommend that the browser should make the best effort to set the property correctly. The specific cases are: 1) Browser window minimized. 2) Background tab. 3) IFrame outside of viewport. 4) One of document's ancestor is set to display:none and so on.. what are other cases where we'd like "hidden" to return true? Does it make sense to specify this way? Arvind On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > 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.
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 20:11:42 UTC