- From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:04:48 +0800
- To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA1TnvV-nw0R4wGFQcugKVBiZignRGa=e6f-mfDHrr9uVi00xA@mail.gmail.com>
Just got some clarification from Jatinder and the proposal sounds good. If others are also fine with the text, I will make the change. thanks, Zhiheng On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote: > On 6/28/2012 2:09 AM, James Graham wrote: > > HTML defines the concept of navigation. It will be very confusing if we > have two specs > > overloading the same term to mean slightly different things. > > > > I would prefer we reuse the HTML concepts as far as possible, but if > there are clear use > > cases that require a new concept, we shouldn't reuse the same > terminology. > > The HTML5 definition of navigate, > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#navigate, excludes > document.open/.write/.close. Those concepts are defined as Dynamic Markup > Insertion in Section 3.4, > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dynamic-markup-insertion.html#dynamic-markup-insertion > . > > Seems like our goal of ensuring document.open/.write/.close does not > impact Navigation Timing and our goal of defining what is a navigation in > Navigation Timing can be achieved by referencing > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#navigate in the Navigation > Timing spec. > > Zhiheng, I recommend making the following changes to the spec: > > Section 3 Terminology > <p>Throughout this work, navigation refers to the act of <a href=" > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#navigate">navigating</a>. </p> > > Section 5.1 Processing Model > For step 1, replace the following text, > > <p>If the navigation is aborted for any of the following reasons... > > With, > > <p>If the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#navigate">navigation</a> > is aborted for any of the following reasons... > > > I think that should be sufficient. > > Thanks, > Jatinder > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 16:05:21 UTC