It's intentional. If you look at the implementation, we explicitly extract the <script> tags and use our globalEval implementation to execute them. Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com> wrote: > Yehuda, > > Can you help clarify here whether jQuery's behavior is intentional > (i.e. use cases drive the need for executability), or if it's a > side-effect of the implementation? > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org> wrote: > >> > There appears to be a consensus to use document.parse (which is fine > >> > with > >> > me), so I would like to double-check which behavior we're picking. > IMO, > >> > the > >> > only sane choice is to unset the already-started flag since doing > >> > otherwise > >> > implies script elements parsed by document.parse won't be executed > when > >> > inserted into a document. > >> > >> I was expecting document.parse() to make scripts unexecutable. Are > >> there use cases for creating executable scripts using this facility? > > > > > > jQuery appears to let script elements run: http://jsfiddle.net/kB8Fp/2/ > > > > Also, we're talking about using the same algorithm for template element. > > I would like script elements inside my template to run. > > > > - Ryosuke > > >
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 20:04:04 UTC