W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Further update to Window Object 1.0, I think it's ready for first Working Draft

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 03:41:57 -0700
Message-Id: <F657BC0B-9F87-46E9-B234-044FD465A40D@apple.com>
Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


I addressed a few more of your comments by filing ACTIONs or ISSUEs.  
Still a few more to go.

On Mar 27, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

>
>
> | Need to define the term "document"?
>
> If you do, I'd define it as "A document is an object that  
> implements the
> Document interface" or some such.

I filed ACTION-130 for this.

> I think it's confusing that you have different definitions for  
> "self" and
> "window". I also think it's confusing that you have two MUST  
> requirements
> for what "self" should be -- if you can't just use the same  
> definition,
> you should at least make one of those two definitions a statement  
> of fact.

In addition to previous discussion I filed the following action which  
I think will allow the arrangement you prefer:
ACTION-131: Window 1.0 needs to define "being the same object" in  
such a way that it is an equivalence relation


> "For documents not being presented in a browsing context, the value  
> of the
> defaultView attribute MUST be null."
>
> There is no requirement in the spec that such documents even implement
> this interface, so that seems wrong. Indeed the spec is clear that  
> it is
> documents that _are_ in browsing contexts that implement this.
>
> So I would request that this be removed. Documents not being  
> presented in
> a browsing context wouldn't even have the defaultView attribute.

In addition to previous discussion, I filed:
ISSUE-66: should Documents that aren't being presented be required to  
have a null defaultView?
> The "5.1. The Window Interface, Timer Attributes" section is woefully
> inadequate. See the WHATWG spec.
>
>
> Notwithstanding the fact that the WHATWG spec makes the same mistake,
> the "5.2. The TimerListener Interface" section should IMHO be  
> dropped. The
> setTimeout(), etc, APIs are ECMAScript-specific, and it makes no  
> sense to
> make them available to other languages. In fact in other languages  
> there
> are bound to be much better ways of doing timeouts than using DOM  
> APIs.

I filed:
ISSUE-70: what to do about window timers?



Regards,

Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 10:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT