W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [XHR] SVG WG LC comments

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:01:10 -0700
Message-ID: <48518E96.9060600@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>

>>  │ This is the Document pointer.
>>
>> If 'pointer' or 'Document pointer' is a term (which the styling seems 
>> to indicate) then please add it to section 2.2.
> 
> The specification defines various terms throughout the specification. 
> Only terms that didn't really fit anywhere else are in section 2.2.

Still sounds like "Document" is the correct term here, rather than 
"Document pointer".

>>  │ When the XMLHttpRequest() constructor is invoked a persistent
>>  │ pointer to the associated Document object is stored on the newly
>>  │ created object. This is the Document pointer. The associated
>>  │ Document object is the one returned by the document attribute from
>>  │ the object on which the XMLHttpRequest() constructor was invoked
>>  │ (a Window object).
>>
>> Since the document attribute is actually from the AbstractView
>> interface, I wonder if there’s a neat way you could reference that
>> interface instead of Window for this, to avoid all of the extra overhead
>> that Window has.
> 
> Actually, the overhead that Window has, such as browsing contexts, 
> origin, etc. is vitally important to XMLHttpRequest. Especially when it 
> comes to URI resolution and security.

Isn't the URI resolved using the document? And what's the security 
dependencies. Security in browsers are different enough that I don't 
think we can nail it down too hard.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:04:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:25 GMT