- From: Dennis Joachimsthaler <dennis@efjot.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:14:58 +0100
Am 08.12.2010, 23:09 Uhr, schrieb Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com>: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske at chromium.org> > wrote: >> =visibilitychanged= >> A simple event, fired at the document object immediately after >> document.visibility transitions between visibility states. > > Should be "visibilitychange" rather than "visibilitychanged", to match > "change", "cuechange", "durationchange", "formchange", "ratechange", > "readystatechange", and "volumechange" (I didn't expect so many . . > .). > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: >> 2) There is some potential for abuse (e.g. putting up dialogs to make >> yourself the active tab if you determine that you aren't, though >> perhaps this is a quality of implementation issue). I can >> particularly see things like ads doing this so you don't just >> switch to a different tab while they're running. > > That sounds like it would probably eclipse all other use-cases in > popularity. More sites have ads with timers on them than contain > puzzle games or poll for dynamic content. Is there any way for > browsers to dodge this while still serving the other use-cases? Or do > we just figure that users can just leave the site or do per-site > blocking if it gets too annoying, so it's not a big problem? Maybe we can disallow the "visibilitychange" event to produce any dialogs or anything else that could give focus?
Received on Friday, 10 December 2010 04:14:58 UTC