W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Executing script-inserted external scripts in insertion order

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:44:03 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoiThE5X8d_TXTU3FNtYTToSA9PdOH+BWSm_=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: public html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 10/18/10 1:26 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> Decoupling the property from the attribute seems undesirable.  Maybe
>> we should try to address the use case directly rather than trying to
>> hack around with the async attribute?  Perhaps we should add a
>> waitFor="foo bar" attribute to script elements that delays the
>> execution of the script until all the scripts with the ids listed in
>> the attribute execute (be they defer, async, normal, what-have-you).
>
> This introduces a fair amount of complexity that needs to be defined (e.g.
> at what point do those ID lookups happen, what happens if there are no such
> script elements in the DOM, etc).  It might be workable, of course; I'd
> welcome an unambiguous proposal to evaluate.

My first thought would be to keep a list of the ids of all scripts
executed by the document (adding the ID of each script immediately
before executing the scripts).  When you think you might want to
execute a waitFor script, you first check this list to see if the
prerequisites have executed.  If so, then you execute.  If not, you
append it to a list of scripts-waiting-for-prerequisites.  Whenever
you add an ID to the scripts-waiting-for-prerequisites list, you check
to see if you can now execute any of the scripts in the
scripts-waiting-for-prerequisites list.  If so, you execute the
scripts with fulfilled prerequisites in list-order.  (There are some
details about insertion points which would need to be nailed down, but
you get the idea.)

>> That would also have the advantage of being useable declaratively.
>
> Presumably in combination with @async?

Yes.  Maybe it would be useful for waitFor to imply async?

Adam
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 05:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:15 GMT