My assumption was that the preferred fallback would be equivalent to the behavior of the <meta> element were ignored. I guess people might want to hand-implement their own lazy-loading stuff, but given that the site "works" without it, most people probably won't.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-08-04 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Bobby Holley <bobbyhol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> How about a scheme in which there can be N such <meta> elements, and the >>> painting only happens when all of them are gone (or some timeout occurs)? >>> That solve the common case that Jonas is talking about, and allows >>> libraries >>> to insert their own paint blocker into <head> if they really want to >>> block >>> painting? The a nice side-bonus of this scheme is that the existence of >>> blockers is clearly visible in the DOM, so that a buggy library that >>> leaves >>> a paint blocker active is more noticeable. >>> >> >> Sold! >> > > Sorry for the late response. It seems like we decided to not do anything > here for now, but for future reference, the idea above would be impossible > to feature detect, which may not be ideal. If we decide to propose > something for this in the future, we may want to have a story for feature > detection too. > > Cheers, > Ehsan > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
