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. >
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 04:13:28 UTC