- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:48:32 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-Id: <37B9CE87-53C9-4B79-BD03-00AB6845211C@gmail.com>
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > >> On Feb 25, 2016, at 05:43, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >> On 02/09/2016 11:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> I don't think we should determine any of this. We don't care. Our MQ >>> is so that authors can safely guard styles that will be used on an >>> "active scripting" page and not pollute the printed/etc page. >> >> I agree with Florian that we should set a minimum requirement. > > That makes sense to me (otherwise I would not hve proposed it), but > I am not entirely sure what the requirement should be. How about > going at least as far as firing the DOMContentLoaded event? Or maybe > the load event? DOMContentLoaded would be better. We should have a cut off like that for implementation testing. But not the load event. A slow loading picture shouldn't change the CSS used for printing.
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 14:49:03 UTC