[whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

[Glenn Maynard]

I'm sorry, but I'm running out of time and energy for this thread, so
I'm replying where I think doing so is most useful to the discussion.
I'm happy to defer to Boris's opinion on readyState based on what's
already been discussed.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Kyle Simpson <getify at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Serious issues"?

Boris seemed to have serious issues for Gecko.  If he's happy that
they're settled, then that's fine and I'm sure he'll correct me.

> I don't think this thread is going to benefit from yet a 4th proposal. I
> think the way forward to any kind of solution is to attempt to converge, not
> diverge.

This proposal is an evolution of the preceding ones, based on the
discussion so far and further thinking about the problem.  It's not
something pulled out of a hat.  If you're interested in finding the
best solution to the problem, you can not dismiss improved proposals
out-of-hand.

In particular, this sticks with only loading elements which are
actually in the document, which Boris indicated a strong preference
for, and which I think is much better in general as it doesn't prevent
event capturing.  However, it simplifies the execution mechanism to
make it fit the spec with fewer changes, using the existing execution
mechanism instead of a synchronous one.

This proposal is simple enough in terms of the current spec that the
changes seem straightforward.  That's why I described it the way I
did: as a list of specific changes to the spec, which nobody has
attempted to do for the other proposals.  This approach avoids
changing the "prepare a script" steps at all; I think the other
proposals would need non-obvious changes there.

-- 
Glenn Maynard