I think you've already seen this, but in case you haven't - here is the bug where I've been tracking this. Every report I've seen related to minimum timers is referenced in here. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=792
I think the evidence is pretty compelling that <10ms and >1ms is a better value. Mike On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> ... > >> 2) Consider making WebKit's default minimum timer limit lower - something >>> like 3ms-5ms. I don't know what we would do to verify that this is "safe >>> enough" or who would do the work. Maybe Hyatt? >>> >> > > We are in the process of verifying this now ;-) Our eyes and ears are open > (have been) for bug reports related to this. Right now, we are happy to be > trying something radical. In the absence of problem reports, when do we > declare success? > > > Based on what Peter said, it sounds like there has been at least one > problem report. There was at least one more vague report made informally in > John Resig's blog comments. Maybe we need to start by agreeing what counts > as "absence of problem reports". > > However, by way of comparison, we added a 10ms clamp three and a half years > after the first Safari beta was released to the public, as it took about > that long to get enough bug reports to convince us that we had to do it for > compatibility. > > Given that, I think we may want to find some more active way to look for > potential problems and potential benefits. > > Regards, > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev