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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:34:09 -0800
Message-Id: <14CAC98E-FE4A-46CD-AF9A-7F23E0710630@apple.com>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>


On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:

> I know, but the awkward thing is that if you are creating a new  
> environment
> that has JS but no UI, you have nowhere to put setTimer, etc.

I don't think anything in the spec requires having a UI. The  
properties are about:

1) Providing a global scope for ES
2) methods for some aspects of walking the tree of document  
references in a CDR situation (somewhat incomplete w/o window.frames)
3) timers
4) finding out the current document's URI and navigating to new URIs

They would all work fine in non-visual UAs.

>> I am trying to propose existing interoperable features for
>> specification here, not invent new ones.
>
> I thought that was the case, but your email seemed to be saying  
> that other
> features were under consideration, so I thought it worth asking  
> why, if it
> was more than just setting out what already exists, they would be  
> added to
> such an interface.

I was referring mainly to other existing features that are already  
widely implemented.

> That's the other way round to my question...what if some  
> application *wants*
> the interfaces, like timers (see first point), but not the rest of it.

We could put timers on a separate interface. But I don't think  
anything in the proposed interface is onerous to implement or  
requires having a UI.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 11:34:15 GMT

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