Is there any concerns about the solution I'm proposing or should I move
forward ?
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Vivien Nicolas
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
>> Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:26 PM, wrote:
> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 4:28:30 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, at 02:02, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:51:54 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> > > As far as
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the white screen while a
> page load using a new property in the Manifest. If a website added to
> the homescreen on Chrome Android has a background_color information, it
>
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 4:28:30 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, at 02:02, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:51:54 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > > As far as speed feeling goes, they would win to show something as soon
> > > as
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, at 02:02, zbranie...@mozilla.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:51:54 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > As far as speed feeling goes, they would win to show something as soon
> > as possible and handle any post-first paint loading themselves.
>
> That is
There should be an answer in the middle. Showing something as soon as
possible is best iif it not a half baked part of the UI.
So for example showing the navigation chrome first is good, if it is not
rebuilding right after. Then showing the app content.
But I'm not convinced any of us is the best
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:51:54 AM UTC-7, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> As far as speed feeling goes, they would win to show something as soon
> as possible and handle any post-first paint loading themselves.
That is unfortunately not consistent with my experience. People tend to
perceive
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, at 16:27, Vivien Nicolas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
> > Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the white screen while a
> > page load using a new property in the Manifest. If a website added to
> > the homescreen
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the white screen while a
> page load using a new property in the Manifest. If a website added to
> the homescreen on Chrome Android has a background_color information, it
>
Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the white screen while a
page load using a new property in the Manifest. If a website added to
the homescreen on Chrome Android has a background_color information, it
will be used while the page loads. After Chrome gets the first paint
following a
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Note that Chrome 46 has a way to work around the white screen while a
> page load using a new property in the Manifest. If a website added to
> the homescreen on Chrome Android has a background_color information, it
> will
I'm kind of late on the thread...
While James's solution may work I don't think this is exactly what we want.
My understanding of why the current solution work is:
1. The background-color of the page is retrieved when the load event happens
at
I also forgot to say that the proposed solution does not help for cases like
bug 1199674 afaict.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 8/6/15 4:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Agreed. Would it work to define that they behave like inside of a
display:none layout tree? Or will that still force some cascade
calculations to happen?
If you getComputedStyle then you'll still end up doing style computation
in display:none subtrees.
On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 3:59:23 PM UTC-7, James Burke wrote:
There does not seem to be a need for extra APIs in the browser for
controlling layouts or paints using this approach:
Great work James!
I like that we can play with this approach right now, but I'm wondering if we
should still
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Zibi Braniecki
zbigniew.branie...@gmail.com wrote:
My concern here is that if we don't, we're basically saying that the right
way to write webapps, is to put their content in a template and then inject
the template into body when we're done with startup JS.
On 2015-08-04 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
How about a scheme in which there can be N such meta elements, and the
painting only happens when all of them are gone (or some timeout occurs)?
That solve the common case that
My assumption was that the preferred fallback would be equivalent to the
behavior of the meta element were ignored. I guess people might want to
hand-implement their own lazy-loading stuff, but given that the site
works without it, most people probably won't.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:57 AM,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
https://github.com/jrburke/fxos-startup-test
There are three variations mentioned in the README, each with a
profile.sh capture Profile link:
I did a pass at the Regular profile and put the notes here:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
If the meta tag, or whatever the toggle becomes, is set, then I expect
if the page's JS asks for a DOM element's box properties, it will get
values
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll defer to Anne et al on this one, but I think adding a second pattern
for delivering load notifications is worse than the inconvenience of the
existing pattern.
We will be adding document.loaded, script.loaded, and
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
A simple solution here would be to simply use MutationObservers to
detect when the last meta is removed. Any time that layout
properties are queried after that they could behave like they
currently do, i.e. force a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Agreed. Would it work to define that they behave like inside of a
display:none layout tree? Or will that still force some cascade
calculations to happen?
That might actually be sufficient for now, yes.
--
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
If the meta tag, or whatever the toggle becomes, is set, then I expect
if the page's JS asks for a DOM element's box properties, it will get
values like 0 for sizes, since I believe the goal is to avoid the
browser doing
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Lots of features force layout. Accessing any layout related properties
like .offsetTop or .getComputedStyle() force a layout.
Yes. dglazkov has a library that enumerates the full set. CSSOM should
just define it.
Having an
Le 30/07/2015 22:28, Jeff Muizelaar a écrit :
Can't you just make everything display:none until you're ready to show it?
Note that even with display: none we run refreshStyles everytime an
element is added to the page. I don't know if this is fast when the
whole document.body is hidden though.
On 03/08/15 16:46, Bobby Holley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think something like a meta
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
If the meta tag, or whatever the toggle becomes, is set, then I expect
if the page's JS asks for a DOM element's box properties, it will get
values
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Zibi Braniecki zbigniew.branie...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure if the multiple-meta solution is going to be really working
well.
From the perspective of a gaia app developer that means that he has to
inject manually a new meta for every library he wants to
I'm not sure if the multiple-meta solution is going to be really working well.
From the perspective of a gaia app developer that means that he has to inject
manually a new meta for every library he wants to use.
That feels weird. I would rather expect a single meta that app controls
fully,
(And note that it would be trivial to implement a programmatic promise-y
API on top of this as a library, if people want that).
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
How about a scheme in which there can be N such meta elements, and the
painting only
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about a scheme in which there can be N such meta elements, and the
painting only happens when all of them are gone (or some timeout occurs)?
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote:
How about a scheme in which there can be N such meta elements, and the
painting only happens when all of them are gone (or some timeout occurs)?
That solve the common case that Jonas is talking about, and allows
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:07 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
I am extremely wary of designing a solution like this where there's a single
master switch that any code can unilaterally flip; if the assumption
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think something like a meta name=do-not-render might be a
simpler
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
The need is not for an event, no? But rather for an API which allows
the page to tell the browser that it's ready for initial rendering?
Right.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think something like a meta name=do-not-render might be a
simpler solution here. Coupled with either simply removing the meta
from the DOM, or
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
Is this yet another API where we want to basically have an internal
list of promises?
someInstance.doNotRenderUntil(promise)
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think something like a meta name=do-not-render might be a
simpler solution here. Coupled with either simply removing the meta
from the DOM, or having a function which indicates that rendering is
ok.
Neither of those deal
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:47:26 PM UTC-7, Wilson Page wrote:
Are we expecting that this will reduce unwanted layout/paint cycles on the
critical path and thus minimise the 'white flash of doom'?
Absolutely.
I believe that that's the primary goal, to replace the current race condition
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
Is this yet another API where we want to basically have an internal
list of promises?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Often times the chrome of a webapp is ready before various other
things that are loaded during initial page load is loaded.
OK then, I guess a
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Zibi Braniecki
zbigniew.branie...@gmail.com wrote:
So maybe we would need another event that the website fires to indicate
when it for paint/cache/screenshot.
Assuming pages have an easy way to block the 'load' event until they're
ready, can this just be the
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:03:28 AM UTC-7, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Zibi Braniecki wrote:
So maybe we would need another event that the website fires to indicate
when it for paint/cache/screenshot.
Assuming pages have an easy way to block the 'load'
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Zibi Braniecki
zbigniew.branie...@gmail.com wrote:
So maybe we would need another event that the website fires to indicate
when it for paint/cache/screenshot.
Assuming pages have
Are we expecting that this will reduce unwanted layout/paint cycles on the
critical path and thus minimise the 'white flash of doom'? If not what are
the options for killing this?
If the user has to see anything before the new 'please-draw-me' event, we'd
probably like to see the app's background
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
The need is not for an event, no? But rather for an API which allows
the page to tell the browser that it's ready for initial rendering?
Right. Which gets turned into an event that's sent to the browser.
Rob
--
lbir ye,ea
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-7, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Zibi Braniecki wrote:
2) We want to bring app to foreground/paint it only when the app's chrome
is visually complete.
I would very much want this. Right now, during a navigation from
This is something I've been asking for for quite a while.
We have this state with runtime localization where we have to do backflips in
order to win the race with Gecko to firstPaint.
I filed a bug for getting an API to prevent frame creation [0] and got a
response that display: none should do
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Zibi Braniecki
zbigniew.branie...@gmail.com wrote:
2) We want to bring app to foreground/paint it only when the app's chrome is
visually complete.
I would very much want this. Right now, during a navigation from page
A to page B I believe that we render A until
It should be represented as a color layer which is very cheap. We should
only composite it once. We will use a bit of memory bandwidth but nothing
major, the main thread impact should be very small.
I agree, we should really have some data to support that drawing something
like a display:none is
There are some forces at play in a web app that point to wanting to delay
layout and rendering until a web app gives a signal that it should start:
* ECMAScript modules, and even developer constructed JS module systems
today, rely on async loading of scripts.
* Custom elements need their JS
Can't you just make everything display:none until you're ready to show it?
-Jeff
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
There are some forces at play in a web app that point to wanting to delay
layout and rendering until a web app gives a signal that it should
I can't speak about the validity of the requirement, but in terms of
API, we probably want something more compositional, if several codepaths
need to stop rendering. And then, we end up with the possibility that
someone forgets to enable rendering, with all the ensuing debugging joy.
Since this
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:27 PM, James Burke jbu...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Can't you just make everything display:none until you're ready to show
it?
Just using display: none seems like it will run into the same
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com wrote:
Can't you just make everything display:none until you're ready to show it?
Just using display: none seems like it will run into the same problem
that prompted bug 863499, where the browser did some render/paints of
a
James Burke writes:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Can't you just make everything display:none until you're ready to show it?
Just using display: none seems like it will run into the same problem
that prompted bug 863499, where the browser did
57 matches
Mail list logo