Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Jonas already mentioned it in another e-mail and this feature was
indeed planned (by me 8-)) for XMLHttpRequest level 2. responseText
already follows text/html rules for encoding detection etc. but for
parsing we probably need to state that it needs to run with support
for scripting disabled which affects how <noscript> is parsed etc. I'm
wondering if we should do it like that or have scripts not run and
parse <noscript> as if scripting was enabled. (I'm not sure whether
HTML 5 has an option for the latter, but that's for instance how
html5lib currently works.)
Any opinions on this? Anything else I should pay attention too when
adding this feature?
I would guess a popular use would be to grab HTML fragments and insert
them into the current document, in which case it would be desirable to
parse as if <noscript> was not disabled. I'm also not sure that
scripting needs to be disabled, at least in the non-cross-domain case. I
could imagine interesting uses for either.
The author always has the option of not including <noscript> elements in
their response, so I think the usecase is still supported.
I'm a little bit worried that if we enable scripts for XHR (they are
currently disabled in firefox) that sites would break. Though chances
are probably pretty small. However if scripts are enabled we need to
define exactly in which context they execute. Should they have their own
'window'? If not 'window.document' would not refer to their own document.
/ Jonas
