- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:49:12 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: >> On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:19, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm trying to limit code complexity and bad re-entrancy due to >>>> document.write(). I've been thinking I'd undefine the insertion point >>>> whenever the parser operates on the DOM (except when the parser runs a >>>> script from </script>). This insertion point undefining would override >>>> the >>>> current cases where the spec defines the insertion point. That is, the >>>> insertion point would be undefined when the SVG load event is on the call >>>> stack even if the document was created with document.open() and thus had >>>> the >>>> insertion point always defined per current spec. >>>> >>>> Are there cases other than </script> and the SVG load event that cause >>>> scripts to execute while the HTML parser (innerHTML parser excluded) is >>>> on >>>> the call stack? (As far as I can tell, timeouts and XBL bindings only run >>>> from the event loop, and if there's a nested event loop for sync XHR, the >>>> nested event loop must have been created by </script> or the SVG load >>>> event.) >>> >>> XBL constructors I'm pretty sure can run. Though maybe that's an XBL1 >>> thing. Haven't gotten that far in the XBL2 implementation yet. And in >>> Gecko we also dispatch DOMLinkAdded and DOMLinkRemoved events whenever >>> <link> elements are added/removed. Though I suspect that no content >>> relies on that (the events were intended for internal use only when >>> they were added I think). >>> >>> There's *possibly* also change events being dispatch on form elements >>> when we restore form values if you go "back" to a page. >> >> Would it be OK to undefine the insertion point (i.e. make document.write() >> blow away the page if called) in all these cases including nested event >> loops created by these? > > In face, I would say it's preferable :) That should say "In fact...". Sorry about spam. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 16:50:05 UTC