- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:51:08 -0700
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Jens Alfke<snej at google.com> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Seems like an event would be a better solution. For example fire a >> 'idlestatechange' event with the following API: > > Such an event implies one specific time interval that denotes 'idle'. > Different clients are likely to want to use different intervals, so this > requires some sort of client call, with callback, that lets it specify the > interval it wants. Though you could also argue that it's something that should be in control of the user, and thus the UA. If a page wants to add extra time on top of what the user/ua considers 'idle', the page can always set up a timeout from the eventhandler. I agree that there are situations where this wouldn't work perfectly. But I'm not sure that the extra complexity of the API that David suggested is worth it. / Jonas / Jonas
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 16:51:08 UTC