- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 23:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > Um, well, every browser I've tested already does it, and given the > > kind of stuff that DocumentWindow has (.location, .cookie, > > .execCommand, etc), all of which has to be neutered for these > > non-Windowed Documents, it seems easiest to just remove the relevant > > members. > > At least Firefox does not. It implements nsIDOMNSDocument and > nsIDOMNSHTMLDocument (which is the interfaces where we have these > members) on all documents, and I strongly suspect there are other > browsers that behave the same way. My bad. I made a series of mistakes in my testing here and drew incorrect conclusions. You are indeed correct that what I describe is not implemented. The case I was particularly concerned about was not "presented" vs "not presented", but "has its own global scripting context" and "is neutral to script". A document in an IFRAME has its own Window -- if you have navigated away from that document, but still have a handle to it, does it execute <script> elements that you insert into it? We need to make sure that all the APIs we define, and all the APIs that already exist, are defined for all cases, whether the document is presented or not, and whether it has a scripting context or not. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 23:03:43 UTC