- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:47:45 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > We definitely want to allow all Documents to implement DocumentWindow. I > don't want to have two versions of every document class and have to > worry about constructing the right one. Um, well, every browser I've tested already does it, and given the kind of stuff that DocumentWindow has (.location, .cookie, .execCommand, etc), all of which has to be neutered for these non-Windowed Documents, it seems easiest to just remove the relevant members. > This doesn't say anything about what the properties of an non-presented > window should be though. I agree that it might be bad to *require* > defaultView to be null unless we can come up with a good reason for it. The thing that has to be null is that the document has to not have a global scope. In reality, this means it doesn't have a Window, and thus doesn't have a View, and thus doesn't have a defaultView. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2006 23:47:54 UTC