[whatwg] question about the popstate event

[Darin Fisher]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Justin Lebar <justin.lebar at gmail.com>wrote:

> If I'm understanding the bug correctly, Brady is suggesting not that a
> popstate event isn't fired when we navigate back to a document which
> has been unloaded from memory, but that the state object in that
> popstate event is null.
>
> As I understand it, the crux of his argument relates to the algorithm
> to "update the session history with the new page" [1]:
>
> >    2) If the navigation was initiated for entry update of an entry
> >
> >       1) Replace the entry being updated with a new entry representing
> >          the new resource and its Document object and related state.
>
> I think he's arguing that the set of "related state" that is copied to
> the new entry does not contain the state object.  His evidence for
> this is mostly textual: This state is referenced in other parts of the
> spec, and in those places, it's made clear that the state consists of
> scroll position and form fields:
>
> (From comment #4 at https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33224)
> > I believe "state" in this context is not referring to "state objects",
> but
> > rather "persisted user state" as set forth in 5.11.9 step 3:
> > "For example, some user agents might want to persist the scroll position,
> or
> > the values of form controls."
>
> I think this is a good point from a textual perspective.
>
>
Ah, yes... agreed.



> But I think it's clear that we actually want to persist state objects
> across Document unloads.  If we didn't care about this use case, we
> could do away with state objects altogether.  A document could just
> call pushstate with no state variable and store its state objects in a
> global variable indexed by an identifier in the URL.  When the page
> receives a popstate, it checks its URL and grabs the relevant state
> object.  Simple.  (This doesn't handle multiple entries with the same
> URL, but hash navigation doesn't handle that either, so that's not a
> big problem.)
>
> My point is that state objects are pretty much useless unless you
> persist them after the document has been unloaded.
>

Right!  This is the very perspective I viewed pushState from, and it also
seems to me that the feature is far less useful if state objects are not
persisted after document unload.

-Darin



>
> I also think the fact that we take the structured clone of a state
> object before saving it (and that structured clone forbids pointers to
> DOM objects and whatnot) indicates that the spec intended for state
> objects to stick around after document unload.  Otherwise, why bother
> making a restrictive copy?
>
> (It should go without saying that if you're saving state objects
> across document unloads, you should also be saving the "has same
> document" relationships between history entries.  That is, suppose
> history entry A calls pushstate and creates history entry B.  Some
> time later, the document for A and B is unloaded, then the user goes
> back to B, which is re-fetched into a fresh Document.  Then the user
> clicks back, activating A.  We should treat the activation of A from B
> as an activation between two entries with the same document, and not
> re-fetch A.)
>
> Where the spec needs to be clarified to support this, I think it
> should be.  But let's first agree that this is the right thing to do.
>
> -Justin
>
> [1]
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#update-the-session-history-with-the-new-page
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've been discussing this issue with Brady Eidson over
> > at https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33224,
> > and his interpretation appears to be different.  (I think he may have
> > convinced me too.)
> > I'd really like some help understanding how pushState is intended to work
> > and to see how that lines up
> > with the spec.
> > Also, assuming Brady is correct, then I wonder why pushState was designed
> > this way.  It seems strange
> > to me that entries in session history would disappear when you navigate
> away
> > from a document that used
> > pushState.
> > -Darin
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Justin Lebar <justin.lebar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From my reading of the spec, I would expect the following steps:
> >> > 5. Page A is loaded.
> >> > 6. The load event for Page A is dispatched.
> >> > 7. The popstate event for Page A is dispatched.
> >>
> >> I think this is correct.  A popstate event is always dispatched
> >> whenever a new session history entry is activated (6.10.3).
> >>
> >> -Justin
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> > I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding the spec for pushState
> and
> >> > the
> >> > popstate event properly.
> >> > Suppose, I have the following sequence of events:
> >> > 1. Page A is loaded.
> >> > 2. Page A calls pushState("foo", null).
> >> > 3. The user navigates to Page B.
> >> > 4. The user navigates back to Page A (clicks the back button once).
> >> > Assuming the document of Page A was disposed upon navigation to Page B
> >> > (i.e., that it was not preserved in a page cache), should a popstate
> >> > event
> >> > be generated as a result of step 4?
> >> > From my reading of the spec, I would expect the following steps:
> >> > 5. Page A is loaded.
> >> > 6. The load event for Page A is dispatched.
> >> > 7. The popstate event for Page A is dispatched.
> >> > Do I understand correctly?
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > -Darin
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100112/6a51b592/attachment-0002.htm>