W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [XHR] XMLHttpRequest() Constructor

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:19:25 +0200
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
Cc: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
Message-ID: <op.ua1rino864w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:20:48 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt:
>> The XMLHttpRequest spec doesn't actually define what object is returned
>> by the XMLHttpRequest() constructor.  It should define that an object
>> implementing the XMLHttpRequest interface must be created and returned.
>>
>> Alternatively, the spec could just include a supplemental IDL for for
>> the Window interface, but that would require Bindings4DOM to include the
>> suggested "[Supplement]" idea [1], or similar.
>
> I think using [Constructor]ยน on the interface should be sufficient for
> the UA to be required to have the constructor on the window object.

How would that look on the interface?

   "[Constructor] interface XMLHttpRequest { ... };"

?


> Should the Bindings spec require that the constructor return an object
> that implements that interface?

That would make sense I think.


Also, when will Web IDL define all the DOMString versus null versus  
undefined thingies? XMLHttpRequest needs some of that too.


On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:42:14 +0200, Lachlan Hunt  
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> The second example in section 4 "The XMLHttpRequest Object" states:
>
>    "If iframe is a Window object client will have a pointer to
>     iframe.document in the following example"
>
> There needs to be a comma after "Window object".

Fixed.


Thanks guys! Kind regards,


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 15:20:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 May 2008 15:20:42 GMT