W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2015

Re: [frame-timing] Processing model proposal

From: Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:57:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKZ0ab8Z84qOk=meGd1N7z3x9g73vr5PqMJAhKgh0hzga-H3bA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I heard back from Hixie on
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28347
It all sounds fine to WHATWG. If there is another browser vendor
(non-Chrome) who wants to chime in with a +1 they'll go ahead and make the
edits.

Thanks,
-Mike

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Michael Blain <mpb@google.com> wrote:

> Opened https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28347
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > In a similar vein, this model doesn't seem to specify an event
>> processing
>> > loop for compositing. I think we should keep that part in the
>> Frame-Timing
>> > doc for the moment,  but reach out to WHATWG and see if it makes sense
>> to
>> > add another loop type to this model.
>>
>> Reaching out seems like a good idea. Filing a bug is probably a good
>> course of action.
>>
>>
>> > Thoughts? Comments?
>>
>> Monkey patching the event loop model seems like a bad idea. Though
>> that has not stopped people from doing it before.
>>
>>
>> --
>> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 21:57:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 21:57:30 UTC