News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Browsers. Parent comment

Re:Browsers by pcwalton on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:23PM (#18703828)
How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos?

Remember, if you put visible DOM elements on top of the videos, then you lose scanout compositing no matter what.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browsers by magicalist on Monday December 17, 2018 @08:46PM (#18703922)
> How many sites put invisible DOM elements over the videos?

A lot of them? Vimeo, for instance, has a number of opacity: 0 and hidden divs over the video. Twitch has at least a couple of opacity: 0 divs on top.

Maybe we're interpreting the phrase

> hidden empty div over YouTube videos

differently? That's the structure I assume they were talking about.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browsers by seba_dos1 on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @01:30AM (#18704902)
I'd assume that it was actually an invisible, but not technically hidden div, leading to a fully transparent blending pass - divs with opacity:0 or display:none are trivial to optimize for this case.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browsers by magicalist on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @03:43AM (#18705284)
> I'd assume that it was actually an invisible, but not technically hidden div

Considering that it's now optimized and that's not what the original post said, I don't know why you'd assume that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Browsers by catwell on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @08:46AM (#18706317)
There are visible elements on top of YouTube videos.

That's what this "empty div" is for if that's the one I think it is. It is the container for things like branding and annotations.

[ Parent | on HN ]