- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:56:15 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com> wrote:
> > Why is it useful to go to trouble of doing
> > document.implementation.createHTMLDocument('foo').createElement('img')
> > and have that fetch? The opposite seems true to me. It seems useful
> > that there's a way to create elements which explicitly are inactive.
> > It creates a safe playground to assemble DOM without worrying about
> > intermediate states triggering externally visible effects.
>
> Yeah sure, I'm not opposed to that. But that seems like a somewhat
> bigger change, no? E.g. then you would also change <a>.click() be a
> no-op I suppose? Or <form>.submit(). Not just img.src has side effects.
The spec currently describes this as Rafael suggests (if the Document has
a browsing context, networking works, otherwise it doesn't).
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 20:56:42 UTC