- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:00:14 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> Jonas already mentioned it in another e-mail and this feature was >>> indeed planned (by me 8-)) for XMLHttpRequest level 2. >>> responseText already follows text/html rules for encoding >>> detection etc. but for parsing we probably need to state that it >>> needs to run with support for scripting disabled which affects how >>> <noscript> is parsed etc. I'm wondering if we should do it like >>> that or have scripts not run and parse <noscript> as if scripting >>> was enabled. (I'm not sure whether HTML 5 has an option for the >>> latter, but that's for instance how html5lib currently works.) >>> >>> Any opinions on this? Anything else I should pay attention too >>> when adding this feature? >> I would guess a popular use would be to grab HTML fragments and >> insert them into the current document, in which case it would be >> desirable to parse as if <noscript> was not disabled. I'm also not >> sure that scripting needs to be disabled, at least in the non-cross- >> domain case. I could imagine interesting uses for either. > > The author always has the option of not including <noscript> > elements in their response, so I think the usecase is still supported. The author of the page using XMLHttRequest may not be the same as the author of the page being requested. I'd guess a common use would be to grab the HTML of existing pages, not ones custom-authors just for XHR access. > I'm a little bit worried that if we enable scripts for XHR (they are > currently disabled in firefox) that sites would break. Though > chances are probably pretty small. However if scripts are enabled we > need to define exactly in which context they execute. Should they > have their own 'window'? If not 'window.document' would not refer to > their own document. Yes, I'm not really sure if it's a good idea, but we should consider the pros and cons of both options. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 23:00:22 UTC