Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] HTMLVideoElement.requestAnimationFrame() (#429)

Here is the [draft specification](https://wicg.github.io/video-raf/). It incorporates @smfr's feedback. Notably, the callbacks now fire as part of the rendering steps, immediately before window.requestAnimationFrame() callbacks.

We experimented with using microtask timing instead of animation-frame timing. Painting from a microtask was significantly less smooth for 60fps video on a 60hz screen, due to some vsyncs having double (wasted) paints, and some having none. As such, I don't think a promise or an event with microtask timing makes much sense.

Animation-frame timing is the best option for the intended purpose of this API. requestAnimationFrame() could still be an event or a differently named method. However, on that front, I also tend to agree with @domenic on the consistency of the naming being favorable.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/429#issuecomment-593733748