24484 2014-02-04 08:46:56 +0000 Say "provide a stable state" if that is equivalent 2014-02-19 04:50:58 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#processing-model-4 P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mike philipj rafaelw contributor oldest_to_newest 99655 0 contributor 2014-02-04 08:46:56 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#processing-model-4 Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#processing-model-4 Referrer: Comment: Say "provide a stable state" if that is equivalent Posted from: 42.112.56.121 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1700.76 Safari/537.36 OPR/19.0.1326.45 (Edition Next) 99656 1 philipj 2014-02-04 08:50:11 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#pause says "If any asynchronously-running algorithms are awaiting a stable state, then run their synchronous section and then resume running their asynchronous algorithm. (See the event loop processing model definition above for details.)" This looks identical to "provide a stable state", so just use that if it's equivalent. (When trying to implement awaiting/providing a stable state, I nearly missed this bit because of the wording.) 99658 2 philipj 2014-02-04 12:37:22 +0000 I'd also like to know why a stable state should be provided here. In none of the places that pause tasks does it seems particularly important to do this, is there a potential deadlock I'm missing? 99676 3 ian 2014-02-04 20:01:21 +0000 Consider the case of a page that create a video element, then does alert("Ok, I've started the load!"). The user sees the alert, thinks "I'll go for lunch while it loads", comes back... and we haven't yet started the load, if we don't provide a stable state here. 99677 4 contributor 2014-02-04 20:01:28 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8460. Check-in comment: Fix one case where we provide a stable state but describe it oddly. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8459&to=8460 99741 5 philipj 2014-02-05 03:49:43 +0000 (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #3) > Consider the case of a page that create a video element, then does > alert("Ok, I've started the load!"). The user sees the alert, thinks "I'll > go for lunch while it loads", comes back... and we haven't yet started the > load, if we don't provide a stable state here. OK, I suppose that's reasonable. 100836 6 rafaelw 2014-02-19 01:27:12 +0000 i think that it'd be clearer in the spec to have one notion of "do my stuff after script has done doing it's thing". i suggest refactoring the stable state stuff to use microtasks instead. as for comment 3, i think it's not worth muddying a fairly clean concept by attempting to accommodate this (fairly exotic) use. 100851 7 philipj 2014-02-19 04:50:58 +0000 This bug is closed, so I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24724 instead.