[whatwg] DOMContentLoaded, load and current document readiness

[Jonas Sicking]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hmm.. how long as that been the case? I thought that when we
>> >> >> originally implemented @defer we ran them before DOMContentLoaded was
>> >> >> fired for various internal sanity reasons as well as because it gave
>> >> >> authors better migration paths.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems nice to me to be able to depend on that all scripts have run
>> >> >> by the time that DOMContentLoaded is fired. Except for async scripts
>> >> >> of course, which are always unreliable as to when and which order
>> >> >> they execute. I.e. async scripts is an explicit footgun, but I'd
>> >> >> rather have fewer of those.
>> >> >
>> >> > I haven't changed the spec here. I don't really see what we gain by
>> >> > making the "stop parsing" algorithm different in this way.
>> >>
>> >> Different in what way? From what?
>> >
>> > Different from what it says now in the way you propose above (having
>> > appendChild-inserted <script src> element exection delay DOMContentLoaded).
>>
>> That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that <script defer
>> src="..."> and <script defer> elements appearing in the markup and
>> parsed by the parser should always run before DOMContentLoaded firing.
>> This appears to be what Firefox does, and I would expect that the web
>> depends on this. For example I would expect defered to contain
>> document.write which should not blow away the current page.
>
> That's what the spec says, no?

I thought so, but the comments in this thread made me think otherwise.
If that's the case then I'm happy.

/ Jonas