23279 2013-09-18 21:40:46 +0000 Unclear whether pageshow should fire when .pushState is called 2013-09-25 02:00:40 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#event-pageshow P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian jmjacobs mike contributor oldest_to_newest 93538 0 contributor 2013-09-18 21:40:46 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#event-pageshow Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#event-pageshow Referrer: Comment: It’s not explicitly stated here whether pageshow should fire when, for example, .pushState is called. I would assume so from the phrase “traversing to a session history entry” but I’m not confident of my interpretation and Firefox 23.0.1 (which has implemented the pageshow event) does not. Posted from: 50.0.151.136 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/29.0.1547.65 Safari/537.36 93679 1 ian 2013-09-23 20:12:30 +0000 Step 4.6.4 of "traverse the history" seems pretty unambiguous about when the event should be fired. Can you elaborate on why this is unclear? Is the reference to "traversing to a session history entry" maybe not obviously an invocation of a spec algorithm? Is the algorithm unclear? 93694 2 jmjacobs 2013-09-23 22:34:37 +0000 It would have helped me if the word "traversing" perhaps linked to the algorithm at the beginning of the section, but that's probably because I wasn't reading straight through the document. I started from the pageshow event definition. Just now I also read the .pushState section (#dom-history-pushstate) which has a note down at step 6 that reads: "Since this is neither a navigation of the browsing context nor a history traversal, it does not cause a hashchange event to be fired." This note was helpful for me. It seems to imply that .pushState should not trigger a pageshow event to be fired either, since only history traversals can do that. Feel free to close/reject this issue. Thanks. 93756 3 ian 2013-09-24 22:30:33 +0000 Aha, yes, a hyperlink from the event definition would make sense! I've added one. You should also read this blog post; http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 In particular, the part about "statements of fact". 93757 4 contributor 2013-09-24 22:31:34 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8198. Check-in comment: Add a hyperlink to make this clearer. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8197&to=8198 93774 5 ian 2013-09-25 02:00:40 +0000 Please reopen if there's anything further you think could be added to clarify this.