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

Hi Boris,
Yes it is unfortunate that we are suggesting a non-compatible change.
Earlier in this thread, we discussed this - I'm pasting that exchange
below. Please let us know what you think we should do.

On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> Agreed. It seems quite possible that this won't break any existing content.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Ideally we wouldn't add a new property. So, we should try shipping this
> in
> > the backwards-incompatible way (i.e. changing the existing property) and
> see
> > if we can get away with it.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it ok to just update the spec in a non compatible way i.e. in the new
> >> version of the spec, we say visibility is at document level (which
> would be
> >> not backwards compatible). Or do we need to add a new property?
> >>
> >> Arvind
>




On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 1/25/14 1:37 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> I see that the spec is now a REC
>>
>
> Er, that seems to be confusion between "Page Visibility, Second edition"
> and "Page Visibility 2" which you may want to fix as well.
>
> But my question about web compat still stands, now that the broken
> behavior of "Page Visibility 1" got forced down everyone's throats...
>
> -Boris
>