W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2011

[whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

From: Nicholas Zakas <nzakas@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:49:16 -0800
Message-ID: <B66541E954ECF146AD8CA69D34A283FF3AA1D0912F@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Okay, so it sounds like everyone is really much more in favor of an approach that doesn't require execute() to run the code that was preloaded. That seems to narrow the field back down to the two proposals outlined on Kyle's wiki. The question really is, even with that preference, are either of these implementable within current browser script loading systems? More precisely, is the preference strong enough to rationalize making changes so that one of these can be implemented?

-Nicholas
 
______________________________________________
Commander Lock: "Dammit Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:28 AM
To: Henri Sivonen
Cc: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

On 3/3/11 5:20 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Are there the known to be pages that users frequently encounter that create and set src on a large number of script nodes without inserting them?

Not known to me, no.  I've seen pages that create lots of scripts (one 
per each dynamic action they want to do), of course.

> Or is this a theoretical concern about accidental resource exhaustion?

More this, yes.

> Is the expectation that IE is safe because the accident happens on a sniffed branch that IE doesn't get?

No, IE is safe because it coalesces the script loads in weird ways as 
discussed earlier in this thread.

> (I still quite like the idea of starting fetch upon setting .src and making insertion trigger evaluation. The idea of adding an execute() method scares me. Mainly because having an execute() method is so radically different from how things have worked so far and having insertion execute degrades gracefully(ish) in existing browsers.)

I admit the graceful degradation argument is pretty tempting....

-Boris
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 09:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC