- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:09:59 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> On Feb 6, 2016, at 04:03, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> # scripting: >> # enabled >> # Indicates that the user agent supports scripting of the page and >> # that support is active for the current document. >> # initial-only >> # Indicates that scripting is enabled during the initial page load, >> # but is not supported afterwards. Examples are printed pages, or >> # pre-rendering network proxies that render a page on a server and >> # send a nearly-static version of the page to the user. >> # none >> # Indicates that the user agent will not run scripts for this document; >> # either it doesn’t support a scripting language, or the support isn’t >> # active for the current document. >> >> I'm wondering if what you actually mean here is more like >> >> scripting: none | onload | interact >> >> ? >> >> Or does 'initial-only' not fire onload events, either? > > I don't think 'initial-only' was attempting to be specific about exactly > at what point scripts stop running, but just generally capturing the idea > that at first they run, but eventually that stops. Maybe we can be explicit > that this means going at least as far as firing the onload events? We're intentionally vague here, and I don't think there's much value in being more specific. The intention seems relatively clear, and regardless of precisely when script stops being run, it still matches the intention of "initial-only". (Theoretically something could, say, run scripts for the first 60s then stop, which would be semantically between the two. But such a UA doesn't exist and would be pretty silly, so I'm happy to ignore the possibility.) > As for renaming enabled to interact, I am not sure. I am not overly fond > of "enabled". However, if you consider a device that doesn't have any input > mechanism (e.g. digital signage) but still runs scripts forever, it doesn't > sound interactive to me, but it is "script enabled". Any better idea? "full"? Yes, "interaction" is only a subset of the things that a live script might be doing. I don't think it captures the intent well. "enabled" works reasonably, I think, because it answers "is scripting enabled?", which is a real question using reasonable wording. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 01:10:47 UTC