W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:37:54 -0700
Message-ID: <w2r4d2fac901004210737n5dd7dabv7ae9af58175616ee@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:47:06 +0900, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I kinda hate the boolean argument. I would rather have a syntax where the
>> intent is obvious from the source code. A boolean is not very
>> self-documenting. In fact I can't even remember right now whether true or
>> false is the value that gives you anonymous XHR. Possibilities:
>>
>> - Separate AnonXMLHttpRequest constructor
>> - Constructor parameter takes an enum value, so you write new
>> XMLHttpRequest(ANON) or something like that.
>> - Constructor parameter takes a string value, so you write new
>> XMLHttpRequest("anon") or ("anonymous") or whatever.
>>
>
> I guess a separate constructor is the easiest way to go then. I wasn't sure
> whether it was worth it as it clutters the global object some more.


I dislike "AnonXMLHttpRequest" because the request is not necessarily
anonymous. For example, the requestor may very well place identifying info
in the body '{"from": "john@example.com", ...}'.

I like constructor name already shown at <
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/#ump-api-name>: "UniformRequest".


>
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 14:38:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT