2013/4/30 James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:42:40PM -0300, Manuel Qui?ones wrote: > > 2013/4/29 James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org>: > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 04:23:24PM -0300, Manuel Qui?ones wrote: > > >> And here a live demo: > > >> > > >> http://manuq.github.io/clockjs/activity.html > > > > > > Should this work if opened on Firefox 20.0 on Ubuntu 12.10? > > > > > > (It shows a clock face, but no arms.) > > > > It is because of requestAnimationFrame. To make it compatible with > > all current browsers , I could do: > > > > var requestAnimationFrame = window.requestAnimationFrame || > > window.mozRequestAnimationFrame || window.webkitRequestAnimationFrame > > || window.msRequestAnimationFrame; > > > > I certeanly dislike doing such things for compatibility :) If we are > > targetting webkit for now, and webkit has the generic one, I suppose > > I'll go with that. It is just time for the other browsers to get it. > > What do you think? > > Tested also on an Android tablet with the Browser app, the javascript > console reported "Uncaught ReferenceError: requestAnimationFrame is > not defined". So this is the same thing. > > I think code that might be executed in the wrong environment should at > least say why it won't run, rather than fail silently. > > Otherwise, add a condition when you publish a live demo: "intended to work in > ${browser} only". ;-)
Thanks for your advice. This should be considered when writting web activities then. > > Here are links for the mozilla page of the feature, and w3 the > > specification: > > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM/window.requestAnimationFrame > > http://www.w3.org/TR/animation-timing/#requestAnimationFrame > > Thanks. > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ -- .. manuq .. _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel