Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove mark paint timing call #5344

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 12, 2020
Merged

Remove mark paint timing call #5344

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 12, 2020

Conversation

npm1
Copy link
Contributor

@npm1 npm1 commented Mar 9, 2020

This PR addresses the concern surfaced on w3c/paint-timing#58 (comment). I think this call to mark paint timing was added to address concerns about visited link issues, but it seems that people agree that this edge case is solved by requiring user agents to paint when such a link is present even if such link is styled by color: white (or whichever default background color). Having this call adds confusion and thus is being removed.


/webappapis.html ( diff )

@npm1
Copy link
Contributor Author

npm1 commented Mar 9, 2020

@domenic could you take a look?

@rniwa
Copy link

rniwa commented Mar 9, 2020

This makes sense. If UA didn't execute steps 5-12 when based on the visited link state, then such a behavior difference is trivially observable by the numerous callbacks & API being invoked there (by observing that they're not invoked).

Copy link
Member

@domenic domenic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy to trust you all that this makes sense, but I'll note that in #3923 we seem to have separated out the three "skip update the rendering" steps (10.2 Rendering opportunities, 10.3 Unnecessary rendering, and 10.4 "for other reasons") in part so that we could add "mark paint timing" to 10.3.

The separation still makes sense, so my intuition is that we we should not re-combine them. But I wanted to check what other folks thought.

@rniwa
Copy link

rniwa commented Mar 12, 2020

Yeah, I don't think we want to re-combine those steps.

@npm1
Copy link
Contributor Author

npm1 commented Mar 12, 2020

I agree, the current steps make sense to me.

@domenic domenic merged commit 7eef537 into whatwg:master Mar 12, 2020
@npm1 npm1 deleted the removeMark branch March 12, 2020 19:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants