Re: Window object, very rough cut of proposed content for first version of spec

On Feb 14, 2006, at 13:44, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> I understand, and my point was only about the name.
> We have a system that uses JavaScript. It can load a document via  
> one set of
> interfaces, and then push that document to one or more renderers. I  
> don't
> fancy calling the global context 'window', since it is a  
> 'controller' that
> contains both the network interfaces and the renderers. But it  
> would be good
> if it had as many of the same methods and interfaces as possible as  
> other
> 'environments'.

One point that Jim brought up was that you can understand that even  
if it's called Window it's just for historical and compatibility  
reasons, while someone who hasn't spent so much time thinking about  
Web specs would look for "the window interface", and not for  
"global", "abstract view", or other such notions. I really don't  
think the name is all that important, I'd rather we focused on the  
actual content of Maciej's proposal.

> But insofar as
> a 'standard' set of APIs is being defined for the future, I think  
> it would
> be better if my kind of application could also fall within this.

They are not excluded, we may be doing several versions of Window.  
Once we've documented what exists in a number of specs, we can start  
looking at what would be smart to add.

>> We could put timers on a separate interface. But I don't
>> think anything in the proposed interface is onerous to
>> implement or requires having a UI.
> That's more the direction I was hoping for. It would be great if we  
> could
> base the interfaces we need for things like timers, and so on, on some
> 'standard'.

We have another deliverable for a timer interface separate from the  
window. The latter could be expressed in terms of the former, we'll  
see once we get there.

Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 13:05:48 UTC