On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky 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
On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Some of the e-mails on this thread were cross-posted to multiple mailing
> lists. Please remember not to cross-post when posting to this list.
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Fred Andrews wrote:
I have always been comfortable with the 'x' p
On 10/5/12 6:04 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky 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. then you would also
This might also be useful for us here at Mozilla (and perhaps the folks
at WebKit). The reason being, if the text-size-adjust property
(currently -webkit-text-size-adjust and -moz-text-size-adjust... not
sure if other browsers implement this) becomes a spec, we then have to
deal with the case o
Some of the e-mails on this thread were cross-posted to multiple mailing
lists. Please remember not to cross-post when posting to this list.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Fred Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > I have always been comfortable with the 'x' part of srcset, but the
> > > w and h part felt somewhat
Can you please move this discussion to another thread and discuss the Path
object on this thread?
Greetings,
Dirk
On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> Yes, but at the cost of performance and memory usage that just doesn'
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Yes, but at the cost of performance and memory usage that just doesn't
> seem worthwhile here.
>
Is there really a nontrivial cost to a one-time warning, the first time a
window attribute is resolved this way? (Warning once per ID would be
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Ian Hickson 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 either this
On 10/5/12 4:59 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(I hope the other browser vendors' rationale isn't actually "not caring
about it".)
Some of them simply care about backwards compat more than about getting
rid of the global scope polluter.
But some, as far as I can tell, really don't care at all. Li
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 .click() be a
no-op I suppose? Or .submit().
Are they not already?
-Boris
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/3/12 11:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> I decided it wasn't worth punishing our users further if no one else in
>> the world cared about this.
>>
>
(I hope the other browser vendors' rationale isn't actually "not caring
about it".)
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rafael Weinstein 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
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rafael Weinstein 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 which explicit
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Ian Hickson 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
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/5/12 4:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> Note that you can append such an 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
On 10/5/12 4:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Note that you can append such an 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 quite
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Ian Hickson 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 event loops d
17 matches
Mail list logo
