- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:32:45 +0300
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 1/27/12 1:30 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> > > > What Firefox does do is block execution of<script> tags (but not >> > > > timeouts, callbacks, etc!) if there are pending non-altenate >> > > > parser-inserted stylesheet loads. This is necessary to make sure >> > > > that scripts getting layout properties see the effect of those >> > > > stylesheets. A side-effect is that a<script> coming after a<link> >> > > > will never see the link in an unloaded state... unless there's a >> > > > network error for the<link> or whatever. >> > > >> > > One exception: If an inline script comes from document.write(), it >> > > doesn't block on pending sheets. It runs right away. If it blocked >> > > on pending sheets, the point at which document.write() returns would >> > > depend on network performance, which I think would be worse than >> > > having document.written inline scripts that poke at styles fail >> > > depending on network performance. >> > >> > Note that this is not conforming. The spec does not currently define >> > any such behaviour. >> >> Which part is not conforming? The exception for alternate sheets, the >> inline script inside document.write thing, or something else? > > Unless I'm mistaken, nothing in the HTML spec does anything differently > based on whether a script comes from document.write() or not. I think that's a spec bug per "one exception" above. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:33:25 UTC