- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:33:54 -0400
- To: "Deng, Pan" <pan.deng@intel.com>, Michael Blain <mpb@google.com>
- CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On 10/31/14, 3:30 PM, Deng, Pan wrote: > Test here http://www.w3.org/2014/10/pv2/iframe-hidden.html, right, it is a display:none iframe. OK. I'm happy to at least consider changes here for display:none iframes. Especially MUST-level changes! I'm a lot less sanguine about things like iframes that are scrolled outside the viewport, browser windows covered by other apps, etc. > Another category is that non-animation related, e.g. the vibration, we are not sure if they are widely used it within a display:none(or other hidden) iframe, not sure if they all expect to be tied to top browsing context. Correct. > So, I think it is worthy to try the change first to see if we can go through. If you can find a UA willing to take the potential compat there, sure. I am not happy with Mozilla taking that gompat hit. > Or, if there is strong use case that we need to tie iframe .hidden to top browsing context. There isn't, and I argued against such tying when PV1 was being created. And got ignored. At this point, this is purely about compat issues. -Boris
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 19:34:22 UTC