- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:55:23 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, public-forms@w3.org
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:47:24 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> The constructor and providing a pointer to the document from the object >> on which the constructor was invoked. > > So correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it work to say that if the > object the constructor is on is a Window things work as now and > otherwise whatever specification placed the constructor on some other > object is responsible for describing how one gets a document from that > object? I suppose. Though it would create some path in the XMLHttpRequest specification we can't really test and it's not clear to me why we should do that. Also, I forgot to mention that the definition of origin in HTML5 depends on Window and we really want to use the HTML5 definition of origin. > Note that a lot of the text can still be shared (in terms of whether the > calling scope or callee object determines the "right" document to use); > all that depends on Window is how one actually gets the document, right? Actually, no, origin depends on it too. I forgot about that because XMLHttpRequest just references origin directly. >> Having basic Window support is also good for the test suite so we can >> actually test the cross-frame scenarios you raised a long time ago (for >> which I added this dependency when I addressed the issue). > > I don't see a problem with saying that the test suite requires a Window, > to be honest. If we really wanted we could somehow flag the tests in > the test suite that really have that as a hard requirement, of course, > but realistically the tests are HTML files, aren't they? So they would > always have a Window... That's fair enough. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 15:55:44 UTC