W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2008

Re: XHR tests

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:41:51 +0200
To: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t86tf1k964w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:04:24 +0100, Hallvord R. M. Steen  
<hallvord@opera.com> wrote:
> Personally I think throwing is quite a natural thing to do in this  
> condition (the document/URL of window has changed since the XHR object  
> was created) and when 3 out of 4 major implementations already do so we  
> probably don't introduce compat problems by specifying that.

This is actually already defined by the draft specification, the tests  
still need to be updated however:


> I still think we can't make implementations rewire their garbage  
> collection to pass an extreme corner case test. This sort of stuff  
> simply should not be specified here. :-p

It should be defined at some point, but I suppose we can remove that test  
as it does not test something that is XMLHttpRequest specific, but rather  
something that has to do with garbage collection.

>> Changing this would require some rewording of the definition of  
>> document pointer in section 4 probably:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest
>> If we want that suggestions are welcome.
> What about just throwing if the associated window is closed or removed  
>  from the DOM?

Actually, I think removing the test is better as this is not  
XMLHttpRequest specific. If the Document object is indeed removed (as with  
navigating) an exception would be thrown per the current specification,  
but whether or not that happens depends on factors that are out of scope  
for the XMLHttpRequest specification.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 11:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:10:00 UTC