- From: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:31:00 -0600
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:44:20 -0500 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > On 11/8/10 8:06 AM, G. Wade Johnson wrote: > >> It's consistent with them being cloned and then inserted, no? > > > > The code does not run at all in the referenced document, so I would > > think this would be different. > > No, that's the general behavior for situations in which scripting is > disabled: the script does not run but _is_ marked as having executed > so cloning it and inserting it elsewhere won't run it. You can test > this with, say, XMLHttpRequest where the responseXML includes > <script> elements. Okay. That makes sense. But, it still brings me back to my real questions. Is this behavior guaranteed by the specs, or is it an implementation artifact? > > Actually, I'm looking to understand what SVG is intended to support > > at the moment. I'm really okay with either outcome, but there's > > seems to be a genuine fuzzy spot here in the spec. > > Yeah, I agree the processing model is somewhat underdefined. I suspect that it hasn't really been a major concern since support for external 'use' references seems to have been lagging until relatively recently. But, it does seem that better defined behavior would be a good thing. Thanks for taking the time to help me wrap my head around this. G. Wade -- All things are possible, given enough time and caffeine. -- Danny Hoover
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 04:31:36 UTC