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

Re: ISSUE-66: should Documents that aren\'t being presented be required to have a null defaultView?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604052348460.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> I agree that it should be allowed. But I am not sure it should be 
> required, and I can't imagine how to test an implementation against such 
> a conformance requirement, as there is no exhaustive list of ways to get 
> a Document and nothing stops UAs from inventing new ones.

No test suite is exhastive. You don't test that the "color" property works 
for every single color, even though the spec requires a particular 
behaviour for every single color.


> To summarize options:
> 
> 1) Require any non-presented DocumentWindow to have a null defaultView.
> 2) Allow a non-presented DocumentWindow to have any AbstractView or null as
> the defaultView (essentially, we disclaim stating a requirement on
> non-presented documents).
> 3) Forbid any non-presented Document to implement DocumentWindow (seems too
> restrictive).

I am strongly in favour of 3. If we don't do 3, we're going to have to 
require a whole heck more than 1 -- we're going to have to special case 
every single API that requires a rendering context.

I am extremely against not specifying this (option 2), as I am against 
not specifying anything that authors could end up relying on.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 00:00:27 GMT

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