On 7/17/15 12:05 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
True, but either way this doesn't seem like a problem. You can create
a DocumentFragment, insert a new , and then let it be GC'd,
today.
Sure. In practice it won't get GC'd until the load completes, which is
sucky, but that's life.
-Boris
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/17/15 10:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> If I look at "update the image data" step 6 it seems it might be
>> fetched at a later point?
>
> Yes, but in practice the fetch will go ahead, no? There's nothing to
> prevent it from happeni
On 7/17/15 10:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
If I look at "update the image data" step 6 it seems it might be
fetched at a later point?
Yes, but in practice the fetch will go ahead, no? There's nothing to
prevent it from happening, so it's going to happen once you reach a
stable state...
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
>> It fails atomically, based on the definition of innerHTML.
>
> What if that 512 KiB of HTML contains ? Following
> definitions, I assume we fire off the network request?
If I look at "
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
>> // What about
>> document.body.innerHTML = "[512 KiB of normal HTML] ";
>> // ? does the HTML make it in, or does the operation fail atomically, or
>> something else?
>
> It fails atomically, based on the definition of innerHTML.
What if tha
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> I have a related question: what happens if the constructor throws?
Right, this is the kind of thing we need to figure out.
>
>
> "use strict";
>
> window.throwingMode = true;
>
> class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
> constructor() {
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
>
>> Like Anne says, if it was better defined when the callbacks should happen,
>> and that it was defined that they all happen after all internal
>> datastructures
>> had been updated, but b
I have a related question: what happens if the constructor throws? Example:
"use strict";
window.throwingMode = true;
class XFoo extends HTMLElement {
constructor() {
if (window.throwingMode) {
throw new Error("uh-oh!");
}
}
}
document.registerElement("x-fo
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> Like Anne says, if it was better defined when the callbacks should happen,
> and that it was defined that they all happen after all internal datastructures
> had been updated, but before the API call returns, then that would have
> been much easier t
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
>
>> I think the problem is that nobody has yet tried to figure out what
>> invariants
>> that would break and how we could solve them. I'm not too worried about
>> the parser as it alread
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Even if it can be specced/implemented, should it? I.e., why would this be OK
> where MutationEvents are not?
Apart from the verbosity and performance issues with mutation events,
I think the main problem with mutation events has been the
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
> I think the problem is that nobody has yet tried to figure out what invariants
> that would break and how we could solve them. I'm not too worried about
> the parser as it already has script synchronization, but cloneNode(), ranges,
> and editing
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Ah OK, thanks. Is there any way to get a consensus from Mozilla as a whole,
> preferably ahead of the F2F?
I think the problem is that nobody has yet tried to figure out what
invariants that would break and how we could solve them. I'm n
From: Olli Pettay [mailto:o...@pettay.fi]
> That is too strongly said, at least if you refer to my email (where I
> expressed
> my opinions, but as usually, others from Mozilla may have different opinions).
> I said "I'd prefer if we could avoid that [Running author code during
> cloneNode(true)]
On 07/16/2015 08:30 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com]
I've discussed this issue with some of Edge's key parser developers.
Awesome; thank you for doing that!
I believe to be the most straightforward approach that most closely matches ho
I've discussed this issue with some of Edge's key parser developers. From a
technical ground, we do not have a problem with stopping the parser to callout
to author code in order to run a constructor, either during parsing or cloning.
For example, in parsing, I would expect that the callout happ
On 07/16/2015 03:45 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Hi all,
Ahead of next week's F2F, I'm trying to pull together some clarifying and
stage-setting materials, proposals, lists of open issues, etc. In the
end, they all get blocked on one key question:
**Is it OK to run author code during parsing/cl
17 matches
Mail list logo
