W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] proposal for a location.domain property

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:23:48 -0800
Message-id: <B44639C3-3129-408A-BAA1-5C5178716829@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>

On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> I don't think location.domain would be the same as location.tld, to the extent I understand the intent of them.
>> For the URL "http://www.apple.com/", "apple.com" would be the domain, and "com" would be the TLD.
> 
> Yes, but for the URL "http://www.google.co.uk/" you would need to have
> publicsuffix.org information in order to determine that the effective
> domain is "google.co.uk" and not "co.uk".
> 
> I'm not going to add this because cookies and document.domain are not
> good use cases for this. Cookies should eventually move to an
> origin-based security model (probably via some kind of opt-in) and
> document.domain should simply be avoided.
> 
> (Ian asked me to reply to this thread
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20011 as the URL
> Standard now deals with these attributes.)

To be clear, I don't support adding either location.domain or location.tld. It was messages earlier in the thread that asked for it. My remark above was just a pedantic correction.

 - Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 19:57:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT