- From: Ben Lerner <blerner@cs.washington.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:30:03 -0700
There seems to be a bit of disagreement among browsers about how event loops and iframes interact when an iframe is removed and then reinserted into its parent document. Consider the following two documents: the parent document has a button that removes or reattaches an iframe to the document, while the second simply sets an interval to update the page content. Page1.html: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html> <body> <p><button onclick="toggleInDoc();">Show/hide</button></p> <iframe id="test" src="page2.html"></iframe> <script> var test = document.getElementById("test"); function toggleInDoc() { if (test.parentNode == null) document.body.appendChild(test); else document.body.removeChild(test); } </script> </body> </html> Page2.html: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html> <body> <p id="test"></p> <script> window.setInterval(function() { document.getElementById("test").innerHTML += "."; }, 500); </script> </body> </html> Assume the user waits until the interval has fired several times, then presses the button, waits a while, and presses it again. There are three possible outcomes: 1. When the iframe is reattached, the inner page reloads. This seems to go beyond the wording of the spec, which says only "When an iframe element is first inserted into a document, the user agent must create a nested browsing context, and then process the iframe attributes for the first time." (This isn't the first time the iframe is inserted into the document, so we shouldn't process the iframe attributes again.) 2. The interval (and presumably, all events) in the iframe is paused while it's been detached (since the document is no longer fully active, but it also has not been discarded because of the global reference to its container element). 3. The interval (and presumably, all events) continues to fire while it's been detached, and the content of page2 will have changed while it's been detached from page1. So far, Chrome 6, Opera 10.6 and Firefox 3.6 follow #1, and IE 8 follows #3. My reading of the "fully active" clause of the spec leads me to expect #2. Which of these behaviors is the desired one? And/or, would it be desirable to permit authors to specify which behavior they intend? Thanks, ~ben
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 13:30:03 UTC