On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:12 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> """
> I have untrusted markup from a third party which I would like to
> safely insert into my page, knowing that the rest of my page is safe
> from whatever the untrusted markup is doing. Also, the untrusted
> markup may be doing expen
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>>
>> Would a means by which authors can mark a pre-fetched script as
>> "stale" allay some of your concerns?
>
> I wouldn't expect anyone to actually use such a means.
Understandable.
I ask because at one point you stated if DOM attachment
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Uh... In that situation I would expect the event handler to
> keep the script alive until the load finishes.
> Anything else is just a bug that exposes GC timing to the web page.
Yes, quite strange. It's fixed in IE9 (at least my test no l
> On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 15:24 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> 1) If your script is no-cache, or max-age:0, does IE make a new
> request for it for every
On Feb 15, 2011 6:34 PM, "Nicholas Zakas" wrote:
>
> 1) Should the default behavior for dynamic script nodes be to start
downloading the file upon the setting of src and only execute when added to
the document (IE's behavior) or not?
Could the default behavior be defined by the user-agent and the
While they are converging, I think the first proposal is simpler,
defines a much more generic interface with applicability beyond script
elements, provides a mechanism for opting into or out of the behavior,
and will lead to cleaner javascript and, unlike readyState, does not
introduce compatibilit
it seems like an
easy change to the spec.
It also belongs in a separate discussion. I should not have clouded this
thread with more slightly-related-but-mostly-off-topic fud.
> -N
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:
whatwg-boun...@lists.
On Feb 11, 2011 10:41 AM, "Nicholas Zakas" wrote:
>
> We've gone back and forth around implementation specifics, and now I'd like
> to get a general feeling on direction. It seems that enough people understand
> why a solution like this is important, both on the desktop and for mobile, so
> wha
On Feb 11, 2011 12:31 PM, "Will Alexander" wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2011 10:41 AM, "Nicholas Zakas" wrote:
> >
> > We've gone back and forth around implementation specifics, and now I'd
like to get a general feeling on direction. It seems that e
>> Doesn't mostly address the use-case of
>> load-but-don't-execute in markup? The reason script-inserted script elements
>> need this capability is more advanced than any use-case for why you'd do so
>> in markup. In other words, I can't imagine that a script loader would rely
>> on adding script
10 matches
Mail list logo
