On Sep 30, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
Subjective note:
I'm much more worried about sites spinning the CPU accidentally
(e.g. they used setTimeout(0) somewhere by accident) than I am about
frame rates on games. Using the clock as your frame rate is super
buggy, and sites need to know better. It won't work now and it
won't work going forward.
If you recall - there used to be a "TURBO" button on PCs as they
made the switch from 8MHz to 12MHz to address this issue. Turbo
buttons don't exist anymore.
Anyway, this is a personal preference; I have little sympathy on the
game front - but more sympathy on the accidental CPU front.
Our attitude towards Web compatibility generally is that if a Web
site works reasonably in other browsers but does not work in Safari,
then it is presumptively our bug. That is what users will assume,
and lectures about how foolish the site developer was tend to have
little effect. Thus, sympathy or lack thereof for particular use
cases does not enter into the picture. We should not be making these
kinds of decisions based on our own personal opinions of the coding
quality of the site.
If you follow this to the logical conclusion, then WebKit should use
a 15.6ms timer. :-)
My point is that applications which are hard coded to work with a
particular minimum timer value are broken already today across
browsers (some are 10, some are 15, and these are significantly
different). Such applications were probably built and tested on a
limited set of browsers, but it does not matter why they are this
way. Given that these apps already behave differently in existing
browsers, I'm much less concerned about this issue than the CPU issue.
Degree of difference matters too, not just whether there is one. For
example, a browser using a different antialiasing algorithm for text
would be much more acceptable than a browser that renders black text
as bright yellow, event though both in theory could make a page look
different than intended.
In practice, a timer value of 10ms instead of 15.6ms does not appear
to be a problem, we have historic evidence that 0ms minimum is a
problem, scattered evidence that 1ms may be a problem, and no clear
information on values in between such as 3ms, 5ms or 7ms.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
