This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 31, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
should we add a markup
option?
#8
Labels
Comments
One element that would definitely need to be "parsed" from such an option: |
getify
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 12, 2017
…dyDelay, loadDelay, and preloadDelay, fixing some inconsistencies in tests
Also: a challenge here is that any resource requests, except Moreover, if the DOM hasn't yet fired the |
getify
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 13, 2017
We can parse the markup with https://github.com/jsdom/jsdom |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Should we add an option that pre-configures the DOM (maybe just the
head
?) with elements as if they had been parsed from the markup?Notably, some elements like
<script async>
behave differently if parsed in markup as opposed to being added via API calls in code. This option would allow you to mock out what the initial state of that part of the DOM was and have it behave as markup instead of API calls. It would go ahead and "request" any resource URLs from<script>
,<link>
or<img>
elements.This would then maybe become the preferred way to emulate markup
<link rel=preload>
elements over what's currently required: to artificially create those with DOM API calls. The timing would of course still be controlled byresources
entries.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: