- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 10:19:30 -0700
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > The content could start a transition to fade out the spinner, and use > requestAnimationFrame to start the fade-in of the real content not at the > next frame, but the frame after. I expect that would give you the behavior > you want, and it doesn't sound too crazy to me. Still has some bad aspects; namely, we *could* be spending the time between "now" and "two frames from now" painting the expensive element in the background, but with your suggestion we have no idea that we need to start doing that. That means we avoid the hitch, but delay the expensive stuff even more than it already is. (Also, more manual than I'd like, but this is an advanced use-case, so that's not a killer con.) Tangent: > q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq > qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq > qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq > qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q > qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq > qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q" Hahahahaha ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 17:20:17 UTC