Summary: | history.pushState should clear the entire forward history | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google) <fishd> | ||||||
Component: | Page Loading | Assignee: | Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google) <fishd> | ||||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | beidson, ian, mjs | ||||||
Priority: | P2 | ||||||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | All | ||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Darin Fisher (:fishd, Google)
2010-01-04 10:52:24 PST
With no one having shipped an implementation and therefore compatibility not yet being an issue, I would personally r- any patch that changes our behavior without the spec being changed. Why did mozilla disregard the spec for their implementation (or did their implementation predate the spec)? In your w3.org bug, you state "There is also support in the WebKit community for changing WebKit to match Firefox instead of what is currently spec'd." I'm curious - I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other - but what support in the WebKit community are you referencing? Besides this bugzilla, I haven't heard about this yet. > I'm curious - I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other - but what
> support in the WebKit community are you referencing? Besides this bugzilla, I
> haven't heard about this yet.
Maciej gave his support for this change. (Sorry that doesn't necessarily equate to WebKit community support.) I think that might have been private email :(
Also, I should have included this link to the whatwg discussion on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg19615.html This is an easy change and it makes sense to align with "the other implementor" on this. That said, we really need to keep lobbying on the spec... > That said, we really need to keep lobbying on the spec...
I've already spoken with Ian Hickson, and he is also supportive of changing the spec. I believe that changing our implementation to match Firefox will help support the case of having the spec corrected.
Created attachment 46608 [details]
v1 patch
Spec is updated. Comment on attachment 46608 [details]
v1 patch
The indirection of insertItemAfterCurrent() is no longer necessary.
The only reason the private insertItemAfterCurrent() was added in the first place was to differentiate between a pushState() and an addItem(). Now that the distinction is removed, I'd rather see the body of insertItemAfterCurrent() moved back into addItem(), and have pushState() call addItem().
(Otherwise, looks good)
> The indirection of insertItemAfterCurrent() is no longer necessary.
Yeah, sounds good.
Created attachment 46646 [details]
v2 patch: insertItemAfterCurrent removed
Landed as http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/53324 |