22560 2013-07-03 17:27:36 +0000 [imports]: Recursion? 2013-07-19 15:03:08 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified All All RESOLVED INVALID P2 normal --- 20683 1 w3.org dglazkov w3.org public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 90243 0 w3.org 2013-07-03 17:27:36 +0000 It's sub-imports all the way down if we're not careful. This should probably specify how to handle the case where a document imports itself, or, more likely, accidentally imports a cycle. 90942 1 dglazkov 2013-07-18 20:11:33 +0000 I am pretty sure we already handle recursion, even this early in the spec: "If LOCATION is already in the loaded import list, let IMPORT be the imported document for LOCATION and stop." 90951 2 w3.org 2013-07-18 21:59:29 +0000 My concern isn't for infinite recursion of pulling in the resource (easily handled with the collection of downloaded resources), it's that the user-agent rendering approach is unspecified when it encounters that behavior. (I don't know if there is a solution to this in the HTML Parsing spec, say for example, with iframes, if so, please forgive my ignorance.) Aside: imports that load in a dynamically generated file that is different on each request could get hairy, but that might be an edge case that this spec doesn't care about. 90952 3 dglazkov 2013-07-18 22:03:52 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > My concern isn't for infinite recursion of pulling in the resource (easily > handled with the collection of downloaded resources), it's that the > user-agent rendering approach is unspecified when it encounters that > behavior. (I don't know if there is a solution to this in the HTML Parsing > spec, say for example, with iframes, if so, please forgive my ignorance.) Can you explain this to me a bit more? I don't understand the problem yet. > Aside: imports that load in a dynamically generated file that is different > on each request could get hairy, but that might be an edge case that this > spec doesn't care about. Sure. You should be allowed to shoot yourself in the foot. We're not a nanny state system :) 90968 4 w3.org 2013-07-19 03:45:32 +0000 I think it is easiest to describe by example: *** GET /recursion.html <html> <head><title>RECURSION!</title></head> <body> <h1>This is recursion.html</h1> <iframe src="/recursion.html" /> </body> </body> </html> *** - Firefox currently doesn't render the iframe's content at all. - WebKit (Chrome + Safari) renders one deep. - Opera (Presto) renders 4 deep. - Cycles stop at number in cycle (N) * (rendering depth) from above. What *should* the behavior be for the representation of rendering for recursive imports? It doesn't appear to be specified anywhere as there isn't a single agreeing implementation across the three engines I have readily accessible. 90992 5 dglazkov 2013-07-19 15:03:08 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > What *should* the behavior be for the representation of rendering for > recursive imports? Unlike iframes, the imports aren't rendered. I still don't understand the problem you're trying to describe.