On 9/8/11 8:23 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
function(event) {
with(event.target.ownerDocument) {
with(event.target.form || {}) {
with(event.target) {
alert(x);
}
}
}
}
This is almost exactly how Chrome implements it. It's all sorts of
buggy. See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=80911
But ยง7.1.6.1 says that the scope chain should be initialized statically
when the content attribute string is converted to a function. I'd like
to check that that is intentional
It's what most UAs implement, I believe... and doesn't suffer from the
sorts of issues mentioned in the bug report above.
since it causes counter-intiuitive
(to me) behavior if an element moves between forms or moves between
documents after the event handler attribute is set.
So it does. Of course people should ideally not be using this syntax to
start with, so it's mostly there for legacy pages that don't often do
this sort of thing.
My results: Firefox and Safari create the scope chain statically: when
an element moves between forms, the scope chain remains the same.
Chrome's scope chain is dynamic and resolves identifiers against the
element's new form. Chrome's behavior seems more sensible to me. Is it
correct?
As implemented, no, in my opinion. See above.
(When an element moves from one document to another (via adoptNode())
firefox uses dynamic scope (perhaps because it is re-creating the
function?)
What actually happens in this case in Firefox internally is that the
parent (in the JS_GetParent) sense of the element's JS reflection is
changed. This was done because origin determination for JS objects
depended on the scope chain, since Spidermonkey didn't offer any other
good way to do it.
With ongoing changes to Spidermonkey, this implementation detail may
change, and then we may be able to preserve static scope in general, maybe.
In any case, the behavior there is definitely an artifact of
implementation details, and not intentional.
In Chrome and Safari, the event handler stops working when
the element is moved from one document to another, so the test doesn't
succeed there.)
It's worth testing Opera and various IE versions here too.
-Boris
