- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:29:05 -0800
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > > Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: >>> >>> So I don't see how "because it doesn't clone the script node" can >>> possibly be supported by the spec text here. >> >> You actually misquoted me slightly - I wrote "script code", not "script >> node" - was that simply a typo or a misunderstanding? > > Er, that was a misreading. OK, now I see where you're coming from on this > issue. > > So the proposal is that if the <script> has no @src and a shallow clone is > done the clone should be allowed to execute if someone subsequently adds > kids or an @src to it, right? I could live with that, though it seems to > complicate the mental model a bit over "clones of scripts that have executed > don't execute, no matter what you do with them". In other words, cloning a script node would not clone the 'has executed' flag? Independent of if the clone is deep or not? I could live with that too, though I'd be somewhat worried about people cloning a subtree that happens to contain a <script> node and then inserting that subtree somewhere else, thus causing the script to evaluate. >> I'm not arguing that whichever implementation is supported by some weird >> reading of the spec - merely thinking aloud about what *makes sense*. > > Oh, agreed. Same here. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 18:29:41 UTC