On 11/17/10 9:48 PM, James Robinson wrote:
In Safari (and at some point in Chrome as well) declarative animations
are not necessarily sampled in the main thread.
Right, that's the direction Robert mentioned Gecko is headed as well.
I'm not entirely convinced about how important it is to
synch
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>
>> Think about this some more. the point if the previous suggestion is
>> that updating keeping a JS animation in sync with a CSS animation has
>> nothing to do with "pain
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/17/10 5:22 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>
>> Think about this some more. the point if the previous suggestion is
>> that updating keeping a JS animation in sync with a CSS animation has
>> nothing to do with "painting" or renderi
On 11/17/10 5:22 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
Think about this some more. the point if the previous suggestion is
that updating keeping a JS animation in sync with a CSS animation has
nothing to do with "painting" or rendering. The fact that apparently
firefox ties those 2 things together i
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
> Think about this some more. the point if the previous suggestion is
> that updating keeping a JS animation in sync with a CSS animation has
> nothing to do with "painting" or rendering. The fact that apparently firefox
> ties those
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Incidentally, I wonder if the beforepaint/animationTick event could be
> dropped altogether. Why isn’t just the callback sufficient?
>
For animation, it is sufficient. We should drop the beforePaint event from
the spec for now.
Rob
-
Gregg Tavares (wrk):
> window.addEventHandler('animationTick", updateAnimations, ...);
I agree that the event name shouldn’t be something related to painting.
> *) Don't render from JS unless visible (ie, don't execute expensive 2d or 3d
> canvas rendering calls when not visible)
>
> With the ca
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>>
>>> So if the JS on the beforePaint takes a while to complete what happens to
>>> the browser? For ex
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:11:40 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> What's the use case? Do you really expect authors to use it?
>
> I was trying to think of something other than throwing. But maybe throwing
> for incorrect usage is best.
M
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:11:40 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What's the use case? Do you really expect authors to use it?
I was trying to think of something other than throwing. But maybe throwing
for incorrect usage is best.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
>
>> So if the JS on the beforePaint takes a while to complete what happens to
>> the browser? For example if you are resizing the browser? Is the browser
>> forced not to be ab
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:42:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> I think for safety, I'm leaning towards saying that different
>> same-origin windows can unregister each others URLs. But if
>> revokeObjectURL is called with a string that i
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
>> > Why not return the full 64bit ID in an opaque object? Maths and
>> > comparing
>> > IDs is meaningless anyway.
>>
>> Then
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > Why not return the full 64bit ID in an opaque object? Maths and comparing
> > IDs is meaningless anyway.
>
> Then we'd have to overload both the structured clone algorithm and the
>
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/108 has been open for a year
and we have made little concrete progress on it unfortunately. Meanwhile,
CORS is shipping, deployed and nobody is planning to take it out or down
as far as I know. I think it is time to move on and go to Last Call.
I
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:39:07 +0200, Vladimir Dzhuvinov
wrote:
Regarding the CORS spec:
Shouldn't "list of exposed headers" be added to the resource policy
bullet list? Or is that already covered by "list of supported
headers"?
http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/#resource-processing-model
I
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:02:22 +0200, Vladimir Dzhuvinov
wrote:
Thanks, Anne. I suspect they got confused by the other CORS headers
that are comma separated. I also nearly fell into this trap, but thank
god, the draft-abarth-origin-07 was still fresh in my head. I suppose
it might be helpful to a
Below is the draft agenda for the 18 November 2010 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:42:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think for safety, I'm leaning towards saying that different
same-origin windows can unregister each others URLs. But if
revokeObjectURL is called with a string that is not a same-origin URL,
it does nothing (other than possibly warning i
19 matches
Mail list logo
