- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:22:40 -0700
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Michael Nordman wrote:
> >
> > What appcache (if any) should the resulting iframes be associated with? I
> > think per the spec, the answer is none. Is that the correct answer?
> >
> > <html manifest='myManifestFile'>
> > <body>
> > <script language="JavaScript">
> > function frameContents1()
> > {
> > var doc = frame1.document;
> > doc.open();
> > doc.write('<img src=image.png>');
> > doc.close();
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > function frameContents2()
> > {
> > return "hello";
> > }
> > </script>
> >
> > <iframe name="frame1" src="javascript:parent.frameContents1()">
> > <iframe name="frame2" src="javascript:parent.frameContents2()">
> > </body>
> > </html>
>
> If there's no manifest="", there's no application cache selected, as far
> as I can tell.
Thats what it looks like to me too in the current draft. Wondering if thats
the right behavior though?
Generally when loading a frame, the appcache from which the doc resource was
loaded gets selected (augmented by an explicit manifest attribute that can
make something 'foreign').
In this case, the src is a script embedded in a page that is appcached, so
in a transitory sense the doc resource was loaded from an appcache, but that
cache does not get selected.
Feels like maybe image.png should load from myManifestFile in the sample?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090701/8b6b1a9a/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 08:22:40 UTC