W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2013

Re: [whatwg] Form-associated elements and the parser

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:21:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_GsNi=Mv-b8m8+5h1ggWNLdpB4eKCezyqFqkmkpB1iiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
Cc: Kent Tamura <tkent@chromium.org>, WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>
As I recall it (it was ages since I dealt with this), the tricky case
that you need to handle is this one:


In this case, web compatibility requires that the <input> is
associated with the form. Specifically hidden <input> elements would
often end up moved, but still had to show up in form.elements as well
as get submitted along with the form.

/ Jonas

/ Jonas

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hixie opened my eyes last week to parser-association behavior of the
> sort found at http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=2428.
> In that case, an <input> in a detached tree is associated with a
> <form> in the main document. This causes badness in WebKit and Blink
> because the association between the <form> and the <input> (e.g., as
> exposed in the HTMLFormElement.elements collection) is only weakly
> held to avoid reference loops (and thus memory leaks). And that
> weakness occasionally results in crashes when one of these objects is
> collected before the other.
> While all modern HTML parser implementations I tested seemed to agree
> on their treatment of the above example (they all return "1" as
> elements.length), this feature doesn't strike me as terribly useful.
> And for what it's worth, it doesn't seem to be present in legacy IE.
> I'm interested what others would think about changing the parser to
> only associate a <form> with an <input> if both are in the same "home
> subtree" (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#home-subtree).
> Or is there some deep web-compat reason for this parsing oddity?
> - Adam
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 23:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:23 UTC