- From: Seth Fowler <seth@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:55:28 -0700
- To: David Young <dyoung@pobox.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 10:35 PM, David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote: > > I cannot take for granted > the good will of the web developer, and even developers with good > intentions may make a mistake or cut corners. Trust me, you’re preaching to the choir on that! > It seems to me that the UA should divvy up resources among iframes based > on the availability of an *audience* to each one. Invisible pages, > occluded iframes, iframes that have scrolled out of the viewport, and > so on, definitely shouldn't get a prime share unless the user has made > an explicit grant. Give the bulk of the resources to what you could > conceivably be looking at. > > Do you see what I'm getting at? Absolutely. I think all of the UAs have implemented features like that, and are working on more. But making iframes aware that they should throttle themselves is still helpful, because well-behaved iframes can take drastic action to reduce their performance and energy impact - even totally stopping all their processing. UAs always have to worry about breaking existing web content, and it’s often hard to take such drastic action automatically for that reason. I think we’ll get the best results if we take both approaches simultaneously. - Seth
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 05:55:58 UTC