- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:13:53 +0900
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 10:09, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.) Right. I don't think we should pin down exactly how long the scripts run, since there are too many possible variants. But maybe we can set a minimum threshold, so that authors have something to depend on. Can they depend on the onload even firing if @scripting: initial-only is true, or is there a risk that a UA which runs synchronous scripts as they get parsed but never fires any event would still match? As for running scripts for up to 60 seconds, I don't know of any UA that does that, but I think Opera mini has a complicated set of rules that boil down to a bound around 5 seconds. But that's still past the onload event, so it should still qualify as initial-only. >> 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 03:14:22 UTC