Note that the spec has moved to FPWD, all of the comments Henri raised have been addressed and WebKit TOT now contains a full implementation including tests.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Rafael Weinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Simon Pieters <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:04:20 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Henri Sivonen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. If DOCUMENT does not have a browsing context, Let TEMPLATE >> CONTENTS >> >>>> OWNER be DOCUMENT and abort these steps. >> >>>> 2. Otherwise, Let TEMPLATE CONTENTS OWNER be a new Document node that >> >>>> does not have a browsing context. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is there a big win from this inconsistency? Why not always have a >> >>> separate doc as the template contents owner? >> > > My goal was to *only* have one separate doc per "normal" doc. Consider the > following: > > <body> > <div id=a> > <template id=1> > <div id=b> > <template id=2> > <div id=c> > <template> > </template> > </body> > > The "if document does not have a browsing context" part is needed by > template 2 so its contents can be owned by the same document as template > 1's contents. I.e. for each document with a browsing context, there is a > single (lazily created) template contents owner which is shared by all > templates reachable from the "main" document's documentElement. > > I'm open to other ways of accomplishing the same thing, but like Jonas, > I'm mainly concerned here with minimizing the number of "extra" documents > which need to be constructed to owner template contents. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Or why not always use the owner document of the <template> element? >> > >> > >> > I think that would cause things like <img> elements to load. >> > > Correct. Remember that we've already agreed that the mechanism for > template contents "inertness" is that the content document fragment (and > all of its descendants) are owned by a document which does not have a > browsing context. > > >> >> True. Though I wonder if that can be solved in other ways. Should be >> relatively easy to fix in Gecko, though I don't know about other >> implementations of course. >> >> Seems unfortunate to add the wonkyness of separate owner documents >> just to overcome this hurdle. > > > >> / Jonas >> > >
