I agree with this position as well. It seems good to have a transition period 
and to gather some data.

 - Maciej

On Oct 11, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote:

> I agree with what Adam wrote in 
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116#c5.  Even if a lot of sites 
> will magically failover to the unprefixed API, we can't know for sure that 
> this change won't break sites.  We need to give them a chance to update.  (I 
> don't know if one Chrome release cycle will be enough.)
> 
> Why not be conservative here?
> 
> -Darin
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM, James Simonsen <simon...@chromium.org> wrote:
> I've posted a patch to remove the "webkit" prefix from requestAnimationFrame. 
> [1] The question is whether or not to continue to support the prefixed 
> version. I propose dropping it for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. We're changing the callback semantics to match the spec. [2]
> 
> 2. IE10 is shipping with this unprefixed. [3]
> 
> 3. Toolkits already use the unprefixed version. [4]
> 
> 4. The advice on the internet recommends everyone use the polyfill technique. 
> [5]
> 
> I'm curious what everyone else thinks.
> 
> James
> 
> [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116
> [2] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66683
> [3] http://caniuse.com/#feat=requestanimationframe
> [4] https://gist.github.com/1579671
> [5] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.requestAnimationFrame
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to