Closed Action-133: Look at https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=1469 from Tobin Titus on 2014-04-24 (public-web-perf@w3.org from April 2014)

From: Tobin Titus <tobint@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:28:27 +0000
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6ca94c21b95e455c8fd302acd2ddb7a1@SN2PR03MB078.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Philippe and I reviewed the test in question and it does make assumptions that are not in the spec.  I wasn't on this team when the test was made, but I believe it was made so that you could actually test the timings in a known environment. In order to test that RAF was called at the proper callback frequency, you needed to make an assumption about the monitor frequency.

Modifying your environment would require that the test be updated as well. Clearly, that's not optimal. We were fine with dropping the test in order to unblock the spec.

-TT

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 18:29:01 UTC