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

Re: [XHR] Dependencies in XHR

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 01:17:36 +0200
To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "Web API public" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ubt5nmkp64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 28 May 2008 00:58:45 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>>  Vendors have actually requested this. The problem is summarized here:
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0249.html
> Well... that's not quite a normative reference. :)

It was not a reference for that claim, it was a reference for the issue we  
have. It seems you're suggesting you rather leave it underdefined?

> Could you please point to a specific request from a vendor requesting  
> that, rather than to your own email stating the claim?


>>> I believe that "origin" can be defined in the Window Object  
>>> specification, one of this WG's explicit deliverables.
>>  In theory it could, yes. Until someone has done that it seems better  
>> for implementations to reference HTML5 as that has a better definition  
>> at the moment.
> I'm not convinced that it's better, since this is an LC draft.  That  
> means the WG thinks it's done, and thus that dependency will persist.

It means the WG agrees that the concept referenced is important to the  
draft. If the concept moves to another draft the WG would surely agree  
that referencing the new draft where the concept is defined is acceptable.

More concrete, if Window moves out of HTML5 into its own separate  
specification updating the XMLHttpRequest CR to point to this new  
specification is a trivial matter. However, so far we have not seen any  
evidence of that happening so it seems better to reference HTML5 as it is  
still being updated in response to comments, etc.

>>> We have discussed adding consideration for "event handler DOM  
>>> attribute" in the DOM3 Events spec, such that a host language can  
>>> define what that means in its context
>>  Again, HTML5 currently has a better definition.
> Okay, I'll work on that.

Great, though note that we reference DOM Level 2 Events currently as that  
is more stable and does everything XMLHttpRequest requires. Referencing  
DOM Level 3 Events instead would actually increase the number of instable  

>>> "If there is a Content-Type header which contains a text/html MIME  
>>> type follow the rules set forth in the HTML 5 specification to  
>>> determine the character encoding. Let charset be the determined  
>>> character encoding."
>>> This is not, strictly speaking, a dependency.  It is a matter of each  
>>> host language defining its own value for charset.  Am I missing  
>>> something here?
>>  It's about determining the character encoding out of a stream of bytes.
> Sure.  Is there some reason this can't be made generic and left to the  
> host language to define?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Note that we also rely on HTML5 for document.innerHTML to define proper  
serialization of a Document object.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 23:17:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:27 UTC