25550 2014-05-05 16:20:26 +0000 Shouldn't <details> also allow intermixed script-supporting elements (before the <summary>)? 2017-07-21 17:44:39 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other All RESOLVED WONTFIX https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25552 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-details-element blocked on dependencies P3 normal Unsorted 25552 1 contributor ian d ian mike zcorpan contributor oldest_to_newest 105051 0 contributor 2014-05-05 16:20:26 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-details-element Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-details-element Referrer: Comment: Shouldn't <details> also allow intermixed script-supporting elements (before the <summary>)? Posted from: 2a00:801:e0:30:d9c4:c34f:b530:6023 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.116 Safari/537.36 OPR/21.0.1432.48 (Edition Next) 105087 1 ian 2014-05-05 21:32:44 +0000 Is there any benefit to putting a <script> element before the <summary> rather than after it? Note that <style scoped> elements are just allowed where the flow content starts, not at the start of the parent element. Why would that not be enough for script also? 105965 2 zcorpan 2014-05-14 13:02:18 +0000 The end result for <style> is the same if it's first or not (modulo selectors I guess). The same is not true for <script> -- the DOM is different when the script runs. (But I'm not sure the current situation is great for <style scoped> either.) 106003 3 ian 2014-05-14 23:37:43 +0000 I agree that the DOM would be mildly different, but it's not clear that that is a particularly big deal here. 128773 4 mike 2017-07-21 17:44:39 +0000 Let’s re-raise this in the GitHub issue tracker if necessary.