W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: The intersection of scripting and the use element

From: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:31:00 -0600
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101108223100.66aa2aad@sovvan>
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:44:20 -0500
Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> On 11/8/10 8:06 AM, G. Wade Johnson wrote:
> >> It's consistent with them being cloned and then inserted, no?
> >
> > The code does not run at all in the referenced document, so I would
> > think this would be different.
> 
> No, that's the general behavior for situations in which scripting is 
> disabled: the script does not run but _is_ marked as having executed
> so cloning it and inserting it elsewhere won't run it.  You can test
> this with, say, XMLHttpRequest where the responseXML includes
> <script> elements.

Okay. That makes sense. But, it still brings me back to my real
questions. Is this behavior guaranteed by the specs, or is it an
implementation artifact?

> > Actually, I'm looking to understand what SVG is intended to support
> > at the moment. I'm really okay with either outcome, but there's
> > seems to be a genuine fuzzy spot here in the spec.
> 
> Yeah, I agree the processing model is somewhat underdefined.

I suspect that it hasn't really been a major concern since support for
external 'use' references seems to have been lagging until relatively
recently. But, it does seem that better defined behavior would be a
good thing.

Thanks for taking the time to help me wrap my head around this.
G. Wade
-- 
All things are possible, given enough time and caffeine.
                                                     -- Danny Hoover
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:31:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:46 GMT