- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/9/11 3:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > This is what I'm leaning towards at the moment. Are there any > > objections to removing the readyState support from<script> (reverting > > r6543) and moving onreadystatechange to HTMLDocument exclusively? > > HTMLDocument, or Document? They're more or less the same, per spec. To the extent that they are not the same, we're still trying to work out what to do. > If it's put on HTMLDocument exclusively, that would solve the > XMLDocument.prototype problem as well. But the readyState property > seems to be on Document, not HTMLDocument.... HTMLDocument in the HTML spec defines HTMLDocument.readyState but says: Document implements HTMLDocument; There's been a suggestion that I should just define it as a partial interface for Document instead and then define HTMLDocument === Document, but I haven't looked into that yet. Since nobody seems to object, I'm going to revert r6543 and make onreadystatechange special. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 14:46:51 UTC