- From: G. Wade Johnson <gwadej@anomaly.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:02:13 -0600
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:33:14 -0500 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > On 11/8/10 11:31 PM, G. Wade Johnson wrote: > >> 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? > > It started as the latter and is moving towards the former, now that > we actually _have_ specs that are trying to cover that ground (e.g. > HTML5). Thanks, Boris. That's what I was trying to understand. I look forward to the clarification of the specs. G. Wade -- I never let schooling get in the way of my education. -- Mark Twain
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 13:02:49 UTC