- From: Michael Blain <mpb@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAKZ0ab-7iN6rDdRXHze9OhaYDo+2qKOVOEHEbvYd7wHT8fk6tg@mail.gmail.com>
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