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: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4852B02E.2080408@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>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:01:10 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>>  │ 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".
> 
> Still? What do you mean?

As in "I still think he has a point".

Using the term "pointer" seems bad since it's very C/C++ specific. I 
don't think it's used in neither Java or EcmaScript, where the term 
"reference" us more common. Additionally it is used very inconsistently 
throughout the spec.

I would suggest using simply the term "Document" or "Document member" 
instead.

>> Isn't the URI resolved using the document?
> 
> Yes, the active document within the window.
> 
> 
>> And what's the security dependencies. Security in browsers are 
>> different enough that I don't think we can nail it down too hard.
> 
> I think it has to two with two documents that can exchange information 
> due to document.domain and then determining the origin of the 
> XMLHttpRequest object.
> 
> However, that's not too important, determining the base URI seems 
> important enough to justify this.

But you are not using the Window object to determine the base URI. The 
AbsctractView interface is enough to determine the base URI.

It is quite clear that the Window and HTML5 specs are not going to be 
finished recommendations by the time we want to put the XMLHttpRequest 
into Rec, so at that point we'll have to remove normative references to 
them one way or another.

So the fewer references you have to them now, the less work you'll have 
to do to modify the spec later.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 17:40:31 GMT

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