- From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:16:34 +0000
Ah, yes, thank you Boris, I think I understand now. Note that the actual proposal doesn't depend on the existence of a UI construct called "tabs" that operate like they do on desktop browsers today. I think the better way to think about it is, if the content of the page is partially visible on *any *screen then it should be considered visible. If it's not visible at all, then it can be considered "hidden". This will differ on different browsers and different platforms. I used the word "tab" only for help in explaining the proposal because today the majority of shipping browsers have a consistent notion of tabs. I agree with you that new UI constructs (and platforms, especially mobile) will change what a "tab" means. But I think overall the discussion about precisely what a tab means is not central to the core proposal. Is that reasonable? --Alex On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > On 12/20/10 10:21 AM, Alex Komoroske wrote: > >> I'm not sure that I understand the point of confusion. When I say >> 'tab', I mean the current UI construct implemented in Firefox, Safari, >> Chrome, Opera, Internet Explorer, and others. >> > > I think the point of confusion is that you think this UI construct is an > important fundamental, whereas others thing it's not. > > > Each window can have one >> or more tabs, and in curent implementations (with very few exceptions), >> each window can only have a single visible tab. >> > > As you note, there are exceptions. What makes you think that two years > from now the now-common case won't be the exception? > > It would be preferable to define whatever visibility API is defined without > reference to tabs; they're a possibly-transient implementation detail. For > example, Firefox on mobile has different rendering areas, etc, but they're > not surfaced as "tabs" to the user; the UI looks and acts totally different, > last I checked (and is implemented quite differently, iirc). > > -Boris > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20101220/63d7dd6e/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 14:16:34 UTC