- From: Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:54:09 +0900
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:29:05 +0900, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> 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? Yes, basically. The reasoning being that when you don't in fact copy the script that has run, a "was executed" flag on the new empty node sort of makes no sense. >> 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". Indeed, and I'm not sure it's worth it. I'll leave that to Ian when he gets to it.. Jonas: > In other words, cloning a script node would not clone the 'has > executed' flag? Independent of if the clone is deep or not? No, Boris suggests exactly the opposite - always clone the 'has executed' flag. I suggest cloning it only for deep clones but don't have a strong preference here, just an "I thought it made sense that way" statement. > 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. Yes, we can not re-evaluate cloned scripts with contents - I think that won't be web compatible even though Safari does it. -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core JavaScript tester, Opera Software http://www.opera.com/ Opera - simply the best Internet experience
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 01:54:31 UTC