- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:15:52 -0600
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Antti Koivisto <antti at apple.com> wrote:
> On 16.11.2008, at 16:16, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> You don't have to fire the event if nobody is listening for it. (Browsers
>> likely already have this implementation for mutation events if nothing
>> else, so this shouldn't be that difficult to implement.)
>>
>
> If I want to update a time display once per second (which I think is fairly
> typical) why should I listen to a flood of events 60 times per second? On
> some devices those events and the Javascript that needs to run to filter
> them might consume substantial portion of the available CPU capacity.
Keep in mind what we're dealing with here. This isn't some trivial
Javascript timer firing off events at 60Hz. This is a full <video>
element. If a little "i++; if( i%60 == 0) {code}" is killing the CPU, then
that device isn't capable of playing a <video> either.
~TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081117/d327280c/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:15:52 UTC