- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:42:28 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27354
Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |travil@microsoft.com
--- Comment #1 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> ---
(In reply to Anne from comment #0)
> To accompany this we also need something like a [NoSlot] annotation. E.g.
> while innerHTML has a getter/setter pair, it does not need an internal slot.
> The return value is computed fresh and any caching is up to the UA.
Yes, for innerHTML this makes sense; however, I wonder if we're taking this too
far. I'd prefer to leave this as an implementation detail--even for innerHTML
you can imagine an implementation that "pre-computes" the result before a call
and then returns it--invalidating it on every tree mutation. It's probably a
bad implementation design, but illustrates that it is an implementation detail.
I don't see why you would annotate the exclusion of this possibility from the
spec's standpoint.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 00:42:30 UTC