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

Re: [frame-timing] Processing model proposal

From: James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD73md+5XiuzwT3_4fFJWR+4+MOnHJxKswsT06cTX4CsFULxDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org>
Cc: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Great, thanks for following up on that.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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 23:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:31:46 UTC