- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:51:51 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26898 Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonas@sicking.cc --- Comment #1 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> --- Why? The <script> thing was mostly done in order to get compatibility with existing content. Specifically there was a lot of content out there that did things like: <div id=elem> <script>...</script> lots of content here <div> document.getElementById('elem').innerHTML += "hello world"; This code did not expect the script elements to execute again because back in those days dynamically inserted <script> elements almost never executed. I don't think any of those reasons apply here. First of all "reimporting" the same URL is a no-op since we de-duplicate imports, right? Second, there's no existing content that we need to be compatible with since imports are a new feature. The reason I'd rather not make exceptions for innerHTML is that it creates arbitrary and hard-to-learn inconsistencies. Why innerHTML but not outerHTML or insertAdjecentHTML? What about the jQuery provided $("markup here") and parseHTML? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 20:51:53 UTC