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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKZ0ab-7iN6rDdRXHze9OhaYDo+2qKOVOEHEbvYd7wHT8fk6tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@chromium.org>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I am not opposed to that change...
What's a better way to specify it?
Just that the events get generated and leave where they go as an exercise
for the reader?
Thanks,
-Mike

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  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> 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 Wednesday, 29 April 2015 21:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 29 April 2015 21:23:50 UTC