Yehuda,
Can you help clarify here whether jQuery's behavior is intentional
(i.e. use cases drive the need for executability), or if it's a
side-effect of the implementation?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Henri Sivonen
On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Yehuda,
Can you help clarify here whether jQuery's behavior is intentional
(i.e. use cases drive the need for executability), or if it's a
side-effect of the implementation?
I can't speak for jQuery, but in
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Flip-flopping is irrelevant.
It's irrelevant in the sense of flip-flopping being bad in and of
itself. Changing one's mind is okay and it's good to acknowledge past
mistakes. However, in many cases if one's mind is
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I believe in this case not changing the way SVG script content tokenizes
would be best for authors.
For what it's worth, I agree with Henri here. In my experience, spec churn
is the number two way of making a spec fail. I think it's better to have
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think the SVG working group should learn to stand by its past
mistakes. Not standing by them in the sense of thinking the past
mistakes are great but in the sense of not causing further
disturbances by flip-flopping.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think the SVG working group should learn to stand by its past
mistakes. Not standing by them in the sense of thinking the past
mistakes are great but in
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think the SVG working group should learn to stand by its past
mistakes. Not standing by them in the sense of thinking the past
mistakes are great but in
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
There appears to be a consensus to use document.parse (which is fine with
me), so I would like to double-check which behavior we're picking. IMO,
the
This seems sensible. I've updated the WebKit patch to do exactly this:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84646
It appears that the details of the proposal are now sorted out. I'll
start a new thread describing the full API semantics.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa
Not that I want to start another bike-shedding, there is one clear
distinction between innerHTML and createDocumentFragment, which is that
innerHTML sets already-started flag on parsed script elements
but createDocumentFragment does not (or rather it unsets it after the
fragment parsing algorithm
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Ok. I think I'm convinced on all points.
I've uploaded a webkit patch
Ok. I think I'm convinced on all points.
I've uploaded a webkit patch which implements what we've agreed on here:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84646
I'm happy to report that this patch is nicer than the queued-token
approach. Good call, Henri.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Yehuda
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Ok. I think I'm convinced on all points.
I've uploaded a webkit patch which implements what we've agreed on here:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84646
I'm happy to report that this patch is nicer than the
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Ok. I think I'm convinced on all points.
I've uploaded a webkit patch which implements what we've agreed on here:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Ok. I think I'm convinced on all points.
I've uploaded a webkit patch
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Issue 1: How to handle tokens which precede the first start tag
Options:
a) Queue them, and then later run them through tree construction once
the implied context element has been picked
b) Create a new insertion
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Issue 1: How to handle tokens which precede the first start tag
Options:
a) Queue them, and then later run them through tree construction once
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com
wrote:
Issue 1: How to handle tokens which precede the first start tag
Options:
a) Queue them, and then later run
Ok,
So from the previous threads, there are appear to be three issues to
resolve, and I'll list the options that I've noted.
I'll follow up with my perspective of pros/cons and ask others to do
the same. Please point out options or issues that I've missed.
Issue 1: How to handle tokens
Ok, so I have some preferences, but they are *mild* preferences and
any permutation of the options below is acceptable to me.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
Ok,
So from the previous threads, there are appear to be three issues to
resolve, and I'll
20 matches
Mail list logo
