W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Should MutationObservers be able to observe work done by the HTML parser?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:33:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_5AHKamY+Ti5kjOgGnsvX2ODyko4nX6SbrcEZOZuBw0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mihai Parparita <mihaip@chromium.org>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Olli@pettay.fi, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@chromium.org>
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> >> The spec actually does require that the UA "provide a stable state" before
>> >> processing <script>s, which invokes the relevant part of the event loop.
>> >> If mutation observers were to fire during parse, it would require those to
>> >> fire too (it currently does not).
>> >
>> > In my testing, Gecko doesn't behave this way: MutationRecords are delivered
>> > at the end of any encountered <script> tags (at the end-of-microtask,
>> > essentially), rather than before they run. If delivery-during-parse is how
>> > we end up going, spec-wise, I think it's important for the use-cases that we
>> > deliver before each script runs.
>>
>> Agreed. This sounds like a bug in our implementation. I filed
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789315
>
> As Olli points out on that bug, providing a stable state doesn't
> perform a microtask checkpoint (nor invoke
> MutationObservers). Given the note attached to the "provide a stable
> state" section, "A synchronous section never mutates the DOM, runs any
> script, or has any other side-effects", it seems that running observer
> callbacks whenever asked to provide a stable state is unlikely to be
> the right thing.
>
> If the HTML parser is updated to enqueue mutations, it seems like
> there also needs to be an addition to the steps run when inserting
> preparing a <script>, unless Olli and I are missing something.

Sorry. I didn't mean to say that the spec was calling for any
particular behavior here. What I meant was that I agree that the most
sensible behavior would be to flush notifications before and after
executing each <script>.

Hence I think the spec should call for that behavior, and that
implementations should implement that.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 12:34:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT