- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:39:13 -0400
Ian Hickson wrote: >> It's not clear to me that what you're proposing is any simpler than what >> Jonas is proposing. > > I agree it's no simpler; I'm saying it's more compatible with IE. And I'm saying it's incompatible with IE in precisely the way that's unacceptable to me as an implementor, I guess.... I'm also not sure that the IE compat is important here; we've had no reports of compat issues with not doing what IE does. > I don't really understand what your proposal would actually translate to, > in precise spec terms. I haven't internalized your parsing algorithm rules, but my intuition given the one compat requirement I know of here (not blowing away documents in cases where IE doesn't blow them away) is that deferred scripts should be treated as if the <script> tags appeared in the HTML character stream after all the content that is actually there... That is, immediately before the EOF point. > One alternative would be to make the scripts that have "src" attributes > but are deferred be excluded from the innerHTML behaviour, and just have > them do the old behaviour I could probably live with that, for what it's worth, but I'm still wondering why we need this innerHTML behavior at all. innerHTML doesn't even run scripts it directly inserts; why would it run some other random script? That said, if for compat we need this I can see doing it... > But it's less compatible with IE than I usually try to be (I would have > specced this innerHTML behaviour long ago if I'd thought to test for it). Again, what you specced is also incompatible with IE, and the precise incompatibility is the issue I (and apparently Maciej) have with it. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 06:39:13 UTC