We have had many discussions about whether the "loadingNode" that we are adding in Bug 1038756 should be the actual element that is being added to a document or if it should be the document where the load is happening. Including the loadingNode gives us more information, since we can just call OwnerDoc() on it to get the document. At least for the TYPE_SCRIPT, TYPE_IMAGE, and TYPE_STYLESHEET cases. This bug is to figure out whether we should loadingElement to loadInfo or replace loadingNode with the loadingElement in certain cases. And then update the callsites accordingly.
Some rough notes from a discussion on this topic - http://pastebin.mozilla.org/6456755
Given the way we progressed with the LoadInfo, I think this bug has become invalid over time.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
This is still valid - we could start passing the loadingElement instead of the loadingNode to loadInfo. I believe <video> and <audio> elements are passed instead of the document they are contained in.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
(In reply to Tanvi Vyas [:tanvi] from comment #3) > This is still valid - we could start passing the loadingElement instead of > the loadingNode to loadInfo. I believe <video> and <audio> elements are > passed instead of the document they are contained in. Oh ok, sorry for closing it prematurely. I thought the way we progressed with loadInfo basically caused this bug never to be finished anyway.
Created attachment 8773517 [details] [diff] [review] 1066833.patch Basic WIP patch that adds a loadingElement to the idl and sets it if the loadingNode is an element. Works reliably for iframes.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.