Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-04-29 Thread Ian Hickson
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, Mike Wilson wrote: > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#navigating-across-documents > > (as of December 26, 2010) > | When a browsing context is navigated to a new resource, the > | user agent must run the following steps: > ... > | 9. Abort the active docum

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-03 Thread Mike Wilson
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > As I wrote in my initial post, my observation was actually > > that this is contrary to current browser behaviour. > > Ah, I see. > > So in Gecko, at least, beforeunload fires before the document > is aborted. Right, that matches my findings in other browsers as well.

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-03 Thread Boris Zbarsky
As I wrote in my initial post, my observation was actually that this is contrary to current browser behaviour. Ah, I see. So in Gecko, at least, beforeunload fires before the document is aborted. -Boris

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-03 Thread Mike Wilson
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/2/11 3:22 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: > > That does sound like a bug? I'd be curious to know what the > > reasoning was for the existing sequence of steps. > > From what I can tell, current browser behavior. As I wrote in my initial post, my observation was actually t

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-02 Thread L. David Baron
On Wednesday 2011-02-02 20:41 +, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > For the links to open a new web page that would actually be > handled by an external app. I remember a few years back when > Yahoo! Messenger came with such an app that set itself up as your > default mail program and opened a new window

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-02 Thread Ashley Sheridan
"Boris Zbarsky" wrote: >On 2/2/11 3:22 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: >> That does sound like a bug? I'd be curious to know what the reasoning >> was for the existing sequence of steps. > > From what I can tell, current browser behavior. > >> Step 10 looks out of place too... >> >> "10. If the new re

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-02 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 2/2/11 3:22 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: That does sound like a bug? I'd be curious to know what the reasoning was for the existing sequence of steps. From what I can tell, current browser behavior. Step 10 looks out of place too... "10. If the new resource is to be handled using a mechanis

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-02 Thread Michael Nordman
That does sound like a bug? I'd be curious to know what the reasoning was for the existing sequence of steps. Step 10 looks out of place too... "10. If the new resource is to be handled using a mechanism that does not affect the browsing context, e.g. ignoring the navigation request altogether be

Re: [whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2011-02-01 Thread Mike Wilson
No comments so far on this issue so I'll describe it a bit more. Consequences of the current text are that resource fetches are canceled for a document when navigating away from it, even if the user then chooses to cancel the navigation at a "beforeunload" prompt and returns to the document. Best

[whatwg] navigation shouldn't abort if canceled

2010-12-26 Thread Mike Wilson
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#navigating-across-documen ts (as of December 26, 2010) | When a browsing context is navigated to a new resource, the | user agent must run the following steps: ... | 9. Abort the active document of the browsing context. ... | 11. Prompt to unload