[whatwg] should we add beforeload/afterload events to the web platform?
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Feb 3 19:53:34 PST 2012
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/3/12 3:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > I also believe that we have proposed this for standardization in the
> > > past, though it seems to have fallen through the cracks a bit...
> > I couldn't find any mention of it in the WHATWG archives or Bugzilla,
> > though I did find an e-mail from sicking saying he'd proposed it to
> > the WHATWG list. :-(
> and then there were some followup mails with broken threading
> bikeshedding the names looks like.
Ah yes, that thread is here currently:
Since the use cases were for new features (as opposed to addressing
security vulnerabilities, which seem more important), I have been
deferring it until I get through the bug reports.
So it didn't fall through the cracks, it's still in a bucket. :-)
(Since I've now done half of that thread's requests anyway, and since it's
gotten implementations already now, I'll fasttrack it.)
> > As noted in the previous e-mail, it's not clear that the
> > content-blocker use cases are valid. The use case that is compelling
> > for beforescriptexecute is regarding sites who are trying to address
> > mixed content vulnerabilities progressively and need to closer control
> > over external script execution.
> That's the use case I was talking about, but they'd want at least
> control over stylesheets too, I'd think.
Surely for the style sheets there's far less of a difficulty in getting
things right? I don't really understand what vulnerability would be
relevant here such that you'd need per-stylesheet control over what was
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg