On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/19/12 12:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/19/12 12:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yes, just not an active one.
OK. I don't think we want to activate links in unloaded documents,
personally
On 12/18/12 3:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Looking at the spec and at browsers more carefully, it seems that this is
actually per spec (i.e. the spec says to follow the link).
Does it say to do that if the ownerDocument of the a has no associated
browsing context? What if it's not the currently
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/18/12 3:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Looking at the spec and at browsers more carefully, it seems that this
is actually per spec (i.e. the spec says to follow the link).
Does it say to do that if the ownerDocument of the a has no associated
On 12/19/12 12:11 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
So I've put in a block on the handling of a (and area) elements
specifically, making their activation behaviour nil if their doc doesn't
have a browsing context
Does a document that is in something like bfcache or has otherwise been
unloaded have a
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/19/12 12:11 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
So I've put in a block on the handling of a (and area) elements
specifically, making their activation behaviour nil if their doc
doesn't have a browsing context
Does a document that is in something like
On 12/19/12 12:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yes, just not an active one.
OK. I don't think we want to activate links in unloaded documents,
personally
-Boris
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/19/12 12:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yes, just not an active one.
OK. I don't think we want to activate links in unloaded documents,
personally
That's probably reasonable... Do you have a test case? :-)
--
Ian Hickson
On 12/19/12 12:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/19/12 12:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Yes, just not an active one.
OK. I don't think we want to activate links in unloaded documents,
personally
That's probably reasonable... Do you have a test case?
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
This is specced. The UA is allowed to send the HTTP request (that's a
truism, of course, nothing stops the UA from sending any arbitrary HTTP
request at any time), but there's no in-DOM visible effect of that
request, because
On 10/5/12 4:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Note that you can append such an img to a different document later
(e.g. the one that executes the script) so fetching it is probably
smart.
It can also lead to privacy leaks and very upset web developers and
performance problems... So it's not
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/5/12 4:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Note that you can append such an img to a different document later
(e.g. the one that executes the script) so fetching it is probably
smart.
It can also lead to privacy leaks
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
This is specced. The UA is allowed to send the HTTP request (that's a
truism, of course, nothing stops the UA from sending any arbitrary HTTP
request at
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Why is it useful to go to trouble of doing
document.implementation.createHTMLDocument('foo').createElement('img')
and have that fetch? The opposite seems true to me. It seems useful
that there's a way to create elements
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Why is it useful to go to trouble of doing
document.implementation.createHTMLDocument('foo').createElement('img')
and have that fetch? The opposite seems true to me. It
On 10/5/12 4:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Yeah sure, I'm not opposed to that. But that seems like a somewhat
bigger change, no? E.g. then you would also change a.click() be a
no-op I suppose? Or form.submit().
Are they not already?
-Boris
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The spec currently describes this as Rafael suggests (if the Document has
a browsing context, networking works, otherwise it doesn't).
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#update-the-image-data
I cannot find out how
On 10/5/12 6:04 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/5/12 4:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Yeah sure, I'm not opposed to that. But that seems like a somewhat
bigger change, no? E.g.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
The question is what it is when a.ownerDocument has no defaultView. The
not in a document case is a different issue.
(See my last post.)
--
Glenn Maynard
18 matches
Mail list logo
