[Bug 24564] [Imports]: Blocking circular reference in the import tree/list

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24564

--- Comment #8 from Gabor Krizsanits <gkrizsanits@mozilla.com> ---
(In reply to Morrita Hajime from comment #4)
> IMO, circular reference itself is totally fine,
> and it seems your point is same (isn't it?)

Yes I think so too.

> Let me try it in coming changes. If it turns out order doesn't matter.
> I'm happy to go back to the map. But I think it matters
> because Blink implementation actually relies on it.
> Well, I admit that writing spec sometimes leads better way to do it :-)

Sounds good, in case it turns out you think you have to rely on it, I would be
interested in why exactly. Unless it's something very blink specific. So far
map seems to work just fine for me, but maybe I'm just missing some important
detail...
Although racy cases, can be tricky, it depends on how do we want to handle
them... I think the best would be to get back to this later.

> 
> On relationship between DOM mutation and import list,
> my intention to have the "import list" concept explicitly is that
> DOM mutation doesn't affect the list order once the import is inserted
> into the list by the loading algorithm.
> 
> I want it rather static because it changing it dynamically will cause
> the nightmare in dependency management perspective. 
> Static order can avoid such complexity.

As long as it's deterministic and keeps things simple I'm all for it.

(In reply to Morrita Hajime from comment #6)
> (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #5)
> > Right.  The only question is script execution order.  Normally we guarantee
> > that scripts in an import run before you keep parsing the importing
> > document, but that's not feasible in this cyclic reference case, right?
> 
> Right. I believe it isn't problem in practice as long as it is deterministic.
> 
> The execution order in general is unclear in the current spec.
> Bug 24565 is to address that problem.

Sounds good to me. Thanks for looking into this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 21:00:59 UTC