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

Re: Window: rewrite Navigation section, added History

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:42:22 -0700
Message-Id: <800EFEA3-2D64-4AEE-B12B-1C8AD781D538@apple.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>


On May 1, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Jim Ley wrote:

>
> "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
>> Anyway, comments welcome even though there are still a handful of   
>> pieces missing. Let me know especially if the text is hard to   
>> understand or appears to overconstrain implementations.
>
> Looking good, but a few comments:
>
> location.reload()  do we not want to list location.reload(true) too?

I think we do, I believe I raised an ISSUE on this.

> | Should define which objects are replaced on a navigation and  
> which aren't.
> | Window is not replaced,
>
> Not sure that this means, but in that Window is also the global  
> script object, care needs to be taken.
>
> Is DocumentWindow really necessary?  It's a relatively new kid on  
> the block, and redundant with Window.location

Content depends on document.location as well as window.location.

> | A normative requirement that UAs implement some security policy
> | that is in line with some general principles of cross-site  
> scripting security,
> | with exemptions allowed for "trusted" content.
>
> I don't think it should be a requirement that any particular  
> security mechanism is required, it's perfectly reasonable to  
> implement the object in a wholely trusted environment, and there's  
> no reason to make them.

I haven't actually written the security section yet, these are just  
notes. However, for interoperability of content I think it is a good  
idea to set a minimum and maximum threshold for what the security  
policy can be. I agree that the definition shouldn't overconstrain  
implementations needlessly.

> The other thing is some language to deal with clashes of names, you  
> say you need a unique name, but currently there is no restriction  
> on uniqueness of names.

For window.name you mean? Yeah, the collision resolution needs to be  
defined. My next task (once I fill in some of the missing details of  
Window) will be to redo the embedding section.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 1 May 2006 17:42:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT