W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: CfC: publish Last Call Working Draft of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline March 14

From: Steve Nester <steve@sahfor.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:16:37 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUYuT177eQRDei41X-eCzpFp6uSif5RbVUu6rK@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
I have one point for consideration regarding the scope.

Ref Section: Cross-document messaging
Consideration- should messaging be bi-directional?

For example; in the example within the Cross-document messaging>Introduction
section, document A calls the function causing an event to fire in document
B.  Document B should either be able to call a function causing an event to
fire in document A OR document B should be able to return data to document A
in response to document A's function call.

i.e.
Document A
var o = document.getElementsByTagName('iframe')[0];
o.contentWindow.postMessage('Hello world', 'http://b.example.org/');
window.addEventListener ...

Document B
window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false);
function receiver(e) {
  if (e.origin == 'http://example.com') {
    if (e.data == 'Hello world') {
//      e.source.postMessage('Hello', e.origin);
       * e.origin.returnMessage('value'); //??*
    } else {
      alert(e.data);
    }
  }
}

This would allow (along with others scenarios, I'm sure) for document A to
resize the iframe window to the correct size of the document B window.  This
has been an issue which occurs in the use hosted payment pages nested in an
iframe within e-commerce sites.

Best regards

Steve Nester


On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

>  This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
> Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of the
> spec (copied from ED version 1.77):
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/publish/LCWD-webmessaging-201103TBD.html
>
> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision
> to request advancement" for this LCWD.
>
> Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
> significance/meaning of a LCWD:
>
> [[
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>
> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
> Draft;
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies
> with other groups;
>
> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these
> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is
> also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical
> report to later maturity levels.
> ]]
>
> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will
> be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. The deadline for comments is
> March 14. Please send all comments to:
>
>    public-webapps@w3.org
>
> Assuming there is consensus to publish this LCWD, the tentative plan is to
> publish it on March 17 with a the LC comment period ending June 1.
>
> -Art Barstow
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT