W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [mediaqueries] scripting

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:09:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDgTE7ge5axTyuDyJy14P3Ci5tYxXSZHRWgM-KbSH=gxw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC