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

[whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:52:57 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=aw7HNgs-ks1LhBLoNM90K7SPFj=CHMjnKsrci@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Nicholas Zakas <nzakas at yahoo-inc.com>wrote:

> 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.

I'm not against execute() as such for a synchronous API, I just don't think
it's necessary for async.  (While I'd prefer a sync API, most people didn't
seem to care enough, which is why I backed off that.)

That seems to narrow the field back down to the two proposals outlined on
> Kyle's wiki.

I think the noexecute attribute approach is preferable to those.  I started
to add it there and got sidetracked by checking into onreadystatechange.
I'll add it shortly.

Can someone double-check that onreadystatechange does not actually work for
this in IE9 in standards mode?  IE9 seems to no longer fire
onreadystatechange when the script is not in the document.  (onerror is,
though, which I think is a spec violation.)

not fired)


Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 10:52:57 UTC

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