- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:09:59 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> That makes sense to me (otherwise I would not hve proposed it), but >> I am not entirely sure what the requirement should be. How about >> going at least as far as firing the DOMContentLoaded event? Or maybe >> the load event? > > DOMContentLoaded would be better. We should have a cut off like that for > implementation testing. But not the load event. A slow loading picture > shouldn't change the CSS used for printing. This sort of discussion is precisely why I don't think we should pin it down. Give that as an *example* of where a reasonable cutoff might be, perhaps. But trying to safeguard users ahead-of-time against entirely theoretical hostile-due-to-stupidity browsers by *literally guessing* what an appropriate cut-off might be is not a useful way to spend our time, and it will only cause further questions down the line. In all the *browsers that actually exist*, it's extremely clear which category they fall into from the plain-text description of each, and there's no reason to suppose that future browsers won't be similarly easy to classify. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 19:10:47 UTC