- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 19:30:16 +1000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 23:26, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes > > > something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested > > > it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). > > > > So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the > > Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version > > and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is > > published. > > > > Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are: > > > > 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getting broader > > consensus on the resolution > > > > 2. Publish the LC "as is" > > > > 3. Publish the LC "as is" but explicitly highlight this Issue and ask > > for Implementer/Developer feedback > > > > 4. Other options? > > > > Of course, I'd like to hear from others but I tend to think we should > > first try #1 (especially since Anne indicates the spec and at least one > > implementations are currently not aligned). > > > > Mounir, Marcos - would you please work with Anne on a mutually agreeable > > solution? > > Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is > what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification: > "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative > order within that task, see bug 26440." > > In my opinion, if the spec is changed to use "animation frame task", it > would not change much in the current state of things. > > Also, I'm not entirely sure why Anne is so loudly complaining about that > issue. The issue was not closed or waived but postponed until we can > properly hooked to the thing. LC doesn't freeze the specification and we > could definitely get this fixed before moving to CR. > > What I suggested to him on IRC and what I believe is the best approach > to reconcile the two worlds (WHATWG live standards and W3C snapshots) is > to take the current version of the spec to LC and update the ED to use > animation frame task and mark it as a WIP feature. I opened issue 75 > last week as a reminder to do that. > > Arthur, what do you think of that solution? Given the lack of answer, should we just go ahead and follow that plan? -- Mounir
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 09:30:38 UTC