- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:26:27 -0400
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:30:29 -0400, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > On 9/21/09 2:01 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote: >> I think Opera even defers >> the fetching of display: none images until the display is changed. > > With those, I believe, it does a synchronous GET when someone asks about > things about the image that need the image data, no? If you mean like asking for img.width, it just shows 0. As in, the <img> is dead until you change its display. Safari doesn't do this though. > I have no problem with a load-on-demand setup as long as it's > transparent to content... > >> So, I'm thinking HTML5 should say that display: none specifically (not >> other display values) "SHOULD NOT" affect... instead of "MUST NOT" >> affect... because there might be cases where display: none deferring is >> desired. > > I think that makes the model very confusing for authors, but maybe > that's just me. Yeh, it doesn't sound ideal. That's for sure. > How do you envision an audio object inside <head> working with this > setup? Or would it have to go inside <body>, per spec? What about > wanting an object that has no rendering at all but lets you interact > with it via script and does something useful for you (say S/MIME stuff > for a webmail client)? Good questions. I envision the object doing whatever I tell to do or not to do :). And, being able to tell it what to do or not to do and have it listen would be great. See below. >> Of course, if the idea is to support deferring for images, <object> and >> <embed> etc. and it's not desired that that support be given through >> css, perhaps there should be some attribute that does that. <img >> disabled> <object disabled> <embed disabled> etc. where .disabled = >> false brings them alive. > > I would prefer something like this. Using CSS for this purpose seems > wrong. Sounds good. If it is an attribute, I wonder what would be a good name. 'disabled' might be likely to conflict with some plug-in param and might conflict with <object> and <img> when they are form controls. -- Michael
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 15:26:27 UTC