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