- From: Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:13:05 +1200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Kartikaya Gupta <kgupta@mozilla.com>
On 9/04/16 6:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I talked this over further with Ojan and Elliot, and I think we're > actually against this, at least as stated. > > The reason is that the "area that the browser is prepainting" can vary > drastically across browsers and versions. At the moment, our window > is *huge* (I think they said 8k by 8k or so?) but we have plans to > shrink it to only a *teensy* bit larger than the visual viewport, just > a tile row or two past the edge (but we'll be doing other work in a > larger window, like running layout on contain'd elements). It's > likely that content will end up depending on a particular size of > window, forcing us to lie in the future. > > That said, just changing the semantic a little, so it's explicitly > just the region of the scroll area that the browser recommends having > prepared, would work. In fast inertial scrolls, it can provide the > end-point window, which would be convenient! > > ~TJ Wouldn't the large variations in implementations force content to actually use the values provided as-is, and not rely on specific numbers? That said, I think having it be a recommended area rather than the literal area to be painted is a good improvement. - Matt
Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 10:13:39 UTC