RE: [frame-timing] Processing model proposal

It may make sense to remove the part about the event going to the performance timeline and leave that to definition by frame timing spec rather than pushing that bit into HTML spec. Previous discussions have leaned towards only exposing frame timing on Performance Observer.

Ilya/Michael, what do you think?

-Todd

From: jamesr@google.com [mailto:jamesr@google.com] On Behalf Of James Robinson
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Michael Blain
Cc: public-web-perf
Subject: Re: [frame-timing] Processing model proposal

Great, thanks for following up on that.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org<mailto: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/