W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Executing script-inserted external scripts in insertion order

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:46:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2ALMhbBGM1yRoVywgO5LRwte-5GyQBwS-Y_fq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Getify <getify@gmail.com>
Cc: public html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Getify <getify@gmail.com> wrote:
> ?> Maybe
>> we should try to address the use case directly rather than trying to
>> hack around with the async attribute?
> I'm confused as to why this proposal seems illogical or "hacky". Here's how
> it seems to work cleanly in my mind:
> Regardless of whether the script is inserted by the parser or by another
> script, if you want a set of scripts to behave "asynchronous" (that is,
> execute each in the set "as soon as possible") then you set `async=true`. If
> you want them to behave "non-asynchronous" (that is, execute each in
> insertion order), you set `async=false`.
> That seems quite logical and defendable to me, and is far more intuitive to
> me than introducing other attributes. What's *not* logical to me is that
> script-inserted scripts currently ASSUME `async=true` behavior (but yet do
> NOT expose such a property), and moreover give no way to override that
> behavior.

Legacy behavior is often illogical.

As well as being declarative, the waitFor proposal also supports more
use cases than the other proposal because it doesn't force a linear
dependency graph.

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 05:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC