- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:43:35 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABMdHiRi21-3=RZwqNQ90s8+RbDdwOGEPkeOxPRbECZWd27n9A@mail.gmail.com>
Note that the spec has moved to FPWD, all of the comments Henri raised have been addressed and WebKit TOT now contains a full implementation including tests. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:04:20 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. If DOCUMENT does not have a browsing context, Let TEMPLATE >> CONTENTS >> >>>> OWNER be DOCUMENT and abort these steps. >> >>>> 2. Otherwise, Let TEMPLATE CONTENTS OWNER be a new Document node that >> >>>> does not have a browsing context. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is there a big win from this inconsistency? Why not always have a >> >>> separate doc as the template contents owner? >> > > My goal was to *only* have one separate doc per "normal" doc. Consider the > following: > > <body> > <div id=a> > <template id=1> > <div id=b> > <template id=2> > <div id=c> > <template> > </template> > </body> > > The "if document does not have a browsing context" part is needed by > template 2 so its contents can be owned by the same document as template > 1's contents. I.e. for each document with a browsing context, there is a > single (lazily created) template contents owner which is shared by all > templates reachable from the "main" document's documentElement. > > I'm open to other ways of accomplishing the same thing, but like Jonas, > I'm mainly concerned here with minimizing the number of "extra" documents > which need to be constructed to owner template contents. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Or why not always use the owner document of the <template> element? >> > >> > >> > I think that would cause things like <img> elements to load. >> > > Correct. Remember that we've already agreed that the mechanism for > template contents "inertness" is that the content document fragment (and > all of its descendants) are owned by a document which does not have a > browsing context. > > >> >> True. Though I wonder if that can be solved in other ways. Should be >> relatively easy to fix in Gecko, though I don't know about other >> implementations of course. >> >> Seems unfortunate to add the wonkyness of separate owner documents >> just to overcome this hurdle. > > > >> / Jonas >> > >
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 17:44:04 UTC