On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <span dir="ltr"><jonas@sicking.cc></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Ian Hickson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Video and audio playback is already extremely CPU intensive, we shouldn't require the UA to burn extra cycles doing unnecessary work.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree. That was exactly the thinking behind the timeupdate event. It allows the UA to determine how fast to update the UI without hurting performance. Basically it puts the UA in charge of the performance critical aspects instead of hoping that the author will work it out.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Though if all implementations are saying that it has the opposite effect then clearly we need to look into if something went wrong :)<br></blockquote><div><br>I don't think firing timeupdate on every frame is *that* bad for us, to be honest.<br>
<br>Rob <br></div></div>-- <br>"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]<br>