visibility transition event, onload may or
may not have already fired.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/20/10 5:16 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
But I think overall the discussion about precisely what a tab means is
not central to the core proposal
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
The earlier condition that I think you mentioned seemed reasonable:
never say the page is hidden when it's not, eg. no false positives.
It's more harmful to tell a visible page that it's invisible, than to
tell an invisible
Hi Bjartur,
Thanks for your comments. I've replied inline.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:27:51 -, Alex Komoroske
komoro...@chromium.org wrote:
Regarding the fact that background tabs aren't necessarily invisible
Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/20/10 10:21 AM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand the point of confusion. When I say
'tab', I mean the current UI construct implemented in Firefox, Safari,
Chrome, Opera, Internet Explorer, and others.
I think the point of confusion
Hi Bjartur,
Thanks for your comments. My responses are inline.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/20/10, Alex Komoroske komoro...@chromium.org wrote:
Thanks for your comments. I've replied inline.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM
Sorry for the delayed reply. I sent a number of responses over the past
week, but it just came to my attention that due to some kind of mailing-list
snafu, they never actually were sent out. I've attempted to bring all of my
replies into this one message. Sorry for the impression that I had
with whether the document’s contents have fully loaded or not,
which implies that for any given visibility transition event, onload may or
may not have already fired.
Thoughts or comments are welcome.
--Alex Komoroske
