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

Checking in.

Do folks have comments?

Arvind


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:

> I've uploaded another version of the draft here to include feedback from
> this thread. Could folks take another look?
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/PageVisibility2/Overview.html
>
> Thanks,
> 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.
>>
>
>