[hoping that quoting works better this time]
On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
[snip]
> > I'd even be tempted to risk breaking existing applications a little bit and
> > make the
> > *default* behavior for HTML5 pages be tha
So.. I wound up speaking to Robert offline and in our discussion his
comments became much clearer to me and I think that it's at least
worth documenting in case anyone else misunderstands as I did (even
historically via the archive).
There are really a few proposals here which are sort of only
tan
I like window.hasAttention if you can even vaguely define what it
means... It's pointless to make it so vague that useful things will
work differently in different browsers by accident rather than by
design (for example, it might be ok for mobile devices to work
differently by design, but it would
Robert; Jonas Sicking; rob...@ocallahan.org; public-
>> weba...@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages
>>
>> So... in describing this feature:
>>
>> Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the
>>
So... in describing this feature:
Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the
some kind of state of a window? Maybe it's a silly bit of semantics,
but it seems clearer to me that most of the things discussed here are
about a whole window/tab being "minimized" (either to
I suppose I should not have used that phrasing... It wasn't really
accurate and it obscures my point... My point was that I actually
wanted it to run in the background... So - does time stop, or just
rendering? I think that you have to be very clear.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Robert O'C
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
> There are lots of reasons why the browser might deduce that the user is not
> paying attention to a document, e.g.
> -- the browser window containing the document is minimized
> -- the tab containing the document is hidden
> -- the docum
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jonas Sicking
>> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Should we also consider th
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> For example, I recently the Image Evolution demo from
> http://www.canvasdemos.com/2009/07/15/image-evolution/ as a kind of a
> performance test and let it run for three days - during which it was
> not "visible" 99.999% of the time. Should
Kardell [mailto:bkard...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:12 PM
> To: Ennals, Robert
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Jonas Sicking; rob...@ocallahan.org; public-
> weba...@w3.org
> Subject: Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages
>
> Right... Not to beat the poi
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the
> some kind of state of a window? Maybe it's a silly bit of semantics,
> but it seems clearer to me that most of the things discussed here are
> about a whole window/tab
PM
> To: Maciej Stachowiak
> Cc: Ennals, Robert; Jonas Sicking; rob...@ocallahan.org; public-
> weba...@w3.org
> Subject: Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages
>
> So... in describing this feature:
>
> Is it really the visibility of the page that is being q
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
>
>
> One thing I like about the "requestAnimationFrame" approach is that it
> makes it easy to do the right thing. If the simplest approach burns CPU
> cycles, and programmers have to t
On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
One thing I like about the "requestAnimationFrame" approach is that
it makes it easy to do the right thing. If the simplest approach
burns CPU cycles, and programmers have to think a bit harder to
avoid doing this, then I suspect the lik
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert >
wrote:
Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
interface up to date with some server state and is using
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert
>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
> >> interface up to da
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert
> wrote:
>>
>> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
>> interface up to date with some server state and is using up CPU time and
>> network resource to do so?
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
> interface up to date with some server state and is using up CPU time and
> network resource to do so?
>
You could abuse my proposal to do this, by periodically (as frequ
-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 2:52 PM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: solving the CPU usage issue for non-visible pages
I have a proposal for solving this here:
http://groups.google.com/
I have a proposal for solving this here:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/527d0cedb9b0df7f/57625c94cdf493bf
The gist is very simple:
1) window.requestAnimationFrame(): Signals that an animation is in progress,
and requests that the browser schedule a repaint
FYI, the original WhatWG thread:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-October/thread.html#23625
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> I posted something about this in the whatwg list and was told to bring it
> here.
>
> Currently, AFAIK, the only way to do an
21 matches
Mail list logo
