- From: Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:57:00 -0700
- Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 21:57:29 UTC
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