W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2009

[whatwg] AppCache and javascript url question?

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:22:40 -0700
Message-ID: <fa2eab050907010822r613c536dm88bcdc39ccb38c4a@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC