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

Re: [XHR] LC comments from the XForms Working Group

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:33:09 +0200
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ucos5ji464w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

Dear Forms WG,

Thanks for using our new list.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:22:15 +0200, Mark Birbeck  
<mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com> wrote:
> This should be changed (or a note added) to stress that this
> dependency on HTML 5 only applies if a user agent actually supports
> the HTML 5 Window object. Section 4 makes this clearer, but the fact
> that the dependency on Window is *conditional* in section 4 needs to
> be reflected in section 2.1.

Actually, support is not conditional.

> In section 4 we have:
>   "Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an  
> XMLHttpRequest()
>   constructor. [HTML5]
> [...]"
> Although an implementation need not support Window--as outlined in the
> first paragraph quoted--

You are not interpreting that paragraph correctly, I'm afraid. There's  
nothing optional about it. The Window object is required, objects  
implementing that object must provide a constructor.

> In both situations Document is *required*, so a conforming
> implementation needs to provide one somehow.
> The spec already leaves room for an implementation to provide this
> 'somehow', in the note that was quoted above:
>   Note: As per the conformance criteria implementations are free to  
> implement
>   this in any way they desire as long as the end results are identical
> to those given
>   by the English prose.

Actually, the specification is quite clear what Document object is meant.  
It's the one associated with the Window object one which the  
XMLHttpRequest constructor was invoked. The specific way this relationship  
is implemented is up to the implementation, of course, and that's what  
that note points out.

> We feel that although these are minor changes, they would clarify for
> implementers that the XHR object is usable in a broad range of
> situations.

I'm afraid you're misreading the specification rather badly. Is there  
anything I can do to make it more clear?

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 12:33:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:09 UTC