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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
