I think we agree on this point - its a matter of what did the website author intend. I believe there are legitimate cases to ask for setTimeout(1). With a pure clamp based approach, this feature is not available today. On the other hand, if the website author accidentally uses setTimeout(1), then they'll see varying behavior on different browsers. I'm sure most website authors are not aware that setTimeout(1) could mean 10 or 15ms. The distinction here is quite subtle, and of course there is no standard which indicates that it would be anything other than the timeout requested.
As for keeping the fan off - if we could keep the CPU idle a 3ms minimum timeout loop does that resolve your concern? Mike 2008/9/30 Alexey Proskuryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sep 30, 2008, в 8:13 PM, Mike Belshe написал(а): > > Thanks - I did see that bug. Intentionally spinning the CPU vis >> setTimeout(,0) is not a problem if it is what the application intended. >> > > > I don't quite agree - even though this may have been the intention, the > application developer will not be aware of all the consequences without > testing in Safari/Chrome. The site will work perfectly in IE and Firefox, > but in WebKit-based browsers, it will eat battery, make the computer too hot > to hold on one's knees, and change the pitch of noise coming from it. These > are quite practical issues. > > It may also work "faster" - but chances are that this delay is not > important for user experience, given that the code was deployed and works > adequately in other browsers. > > Otherwise, I certainly agree that having a high resolution timer support is > a good idea. > > - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
