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

RE: Window object, very rough cut of proposed content for first version of spec

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:48:31 -0000
To: <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a801c63154$32732a60$0e01a8c0@Jan>

Hi Maciej,

Why a 'window' object? Many of these features are independent of a 'window',
and would be better placed on another object...perhaps an application
object, or something. Also, many classes of applications that could use a
DOM and the features mentioned here, don't need a 'window'.

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webapi-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-webapi-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
> Sent: 14 February 2006 10:30
> To: public-webapi@w3.org
> Subject: Window object, very rough cut of proposed content 
> for first version of spec
> 
> 
> 
> Hello people interested in Web APIs,
> 
> Here's my proposal for what to put in the first version of 
> the window object spec, as IDL with comments. This is a small 
> subset of what the window interface provides in popular 
> implementations. These features were selected as follows:
> 
> - Already widely interoparably implemented by mainstream HTML UAs
> - Likely to be helpful for SVG or CDR requirements
> - Simple (nothing that implies the existence of other 
> interfaces with their own complex semantics; no events; but 
> timers and location are
> included)
> - Likely to be uncontroversial (nothing that would spawn 
> debates over its moral values, like window.open)
> - no networking or XML parsing, that will be in other specs
> 
> More complex features would likely be addressed in a 
> follow-on version of the spec.
> 
> Please review this rough proposal to see if there's anything 
> in here that you wildly object to, or anything you think 
> desperately needs adding. Keep in mind that this is not the 
> last word on specifying the window object, I would expect 
> work on a follow-on to start immediately once this spec is 
> done, covering a much broader range of features.
> 
> 
> I propose one of the following for the title:
> 
> DOM Global Object (Level 3? or 1.0?)
> DOM Window Object (Level 3? or 1.0?)
> DOM Level 3 Views (especially if we incorporate AbstractView 
> and DocumentView interfaces into this spec instead of just referencing
> views)
> 
> // or global or window or views?
> module window
> {
>      // based on Mozilla and Safari interfaces, Internet 
> Explorer docs, WHATWG draft
>      interface Location {
>          // the current URI
>          readonly attribute DOMString href;
> 
>          // pieces of the URI, per the generic URI syntax
>          readonly attribute DOMString hash; // (fragment)
>          readonly attribute DOMString host; // hostname:port 
> if port specified,
>          readonly attribute DOMString hostname; // just the 
> hostname, no port
>          readonly attribute DOMString pathname;
>          readonly attribute DOMString port;
>          readonly attribute DOMString protocol; // scheme
>          readonly attribute DOMString search;  // query
> 
>          void assign(in DOMString url); // go to the requested URL
>          // does it make sense to spec reload and replace 
> without specifying history behavior at all?
>          void replace(in DOMString url);
>          void reload();
> 
>          // same value as href; not all implementations have 
> this explicitly but toString is always available
>          // in ECMAScript, and probably this should be 
> explicit for the sake of Java. Or we could skip it since
>          // it matches href.
>          DOMString toString();
>      };
> 
>      // for ECMAScript there is a special case for this type, 
> it can be either a string or a function.
>      // In the string case, the string is eval'd in global 
> scope when the timer fires.
>      // in the function case JS allows extra arguments after 
> the milliseconds argument; the function
>      // is called with extra arguments if any when the timer fires
>      interface TimerListener {
>          // who knows - what interface would work for non-JS 
> languages? this could just be an EventListener
>          // but then we would have to define TimerEvent; it 
> might also be handy to expose that to JS, in which
>          // case this spec would incorporate one new feature 
> for HTML UAs to implement. But I would expect it
>          // to be a simple one.
>      };
> 
>      // should this interface be called something else - 
> Global, DOMWindow, DOMGlobal?
>      // should specify that for ECMAScript execution this 
> provides the global scope
>      // based on Mozilla and Safari implementations, Win IE 
> docs, Web Apps 1.0 draft (some also in SVG Tiny 1.2 draft)
>      interface Window : views::AbstractView {
>          // AbstractView has a document attribute of type 
> DocumentView, should we drop the charade and admit it is a
>          // Document?
> 
>          // self-reference
>          readonly attribute Window window;
> 
>          // self-reference - why both? because both are used
>          readonly attribute Window self;
> 
>          // name attribute of referencing 
> frame/iframe/object, or name passed to window.open,
>          // does it make sense to spec this without being 
> html- specific or defining open?
>          attribute DOMString name;
> 
>          // global object of containing document
>          readonly attribute Window parent;
> 
>          // global object of outermost containing document
>          readonly attribute Window top;
> 
>          // referencing <html:frame>, <html:iframe>, 
> <html:object>, <svg:foreignObject>, <svg:animation> or other
> 	// embedding point, or null if none
>          readonly attribute core::Element frameElement;
> 
>          // Location object representing the current location
>          // assigning this has special behavior in 
> ECMAScript, but it is otherwise read only
>          // specifically, in ES a string URI can be assigned 
> to location, having the same effect as location.assign(URI)
>          readonly attribute Location location;
> 
>          // should timers allow more than long, maybe a 
> floating point type? don't think anyone's timers have more precision
>          // one-shot timer
>          long setTimeout(in TimerListener listener, in long 
> milliseconds);
>          void clearTimeout(in long timerID);
> 
>          // repeating timer
>          long setInterval(in TimerListener listener, in long 
> milliseconds);
>          void clearInterval(in long timerID);
>      };
> };
> 
> 
> Other possible things to add (potentially more controversial):
> 
> - SVG uDOM style timers - way less convenient in JS but maybe 
> better for Java
> - Web Apps 1.0 proposed version of setTimeout / clearTimeout 
> that take a language name as third parameter(*)
> - SVG uDOM window.gotoLocation(in URI) - same effect as
> window.location.assign(URI)
> - IE extension window.navigate(in URI) - same effect as
> window.location.assign(URI)
> - an interface that adds contentWindow property to DOM 
> elements that have contentDocument; perhaps an issue for 
> individual language specs
> - due to the dependence on AbstractViews, Document is 
> required to have a defaultView attribute that points to the 
> window, perhaps it is desirable to add aliases for it, e.g. 
> "window" as in Web Apps 1.0 draft or "global" as in SVG uDOM
> - yet another alias for the window object's self-reference 
> named "global"
> 
> (*) - I think this is unneeded, because there's no need to 
> enable one language to set a timer that will eval code in 
> another language. I think the string parameter versions of 
> these should instead be defined as an ECMAScript binding 
> feature and not in the IDL.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 10:49:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:53 GMT