- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:19:25 +0200
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
- Cc: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:20:48 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt:
>> The XMLHttpRequest spec doesn't actually define what object is returned
>> by the XMLHttpRequest() constructor. It should define that an object
>> implementing the XMLHttpRequest interface must be created and returned.
>>
>> Alternatively, the spec could just include a supplemental IDL for for
>> the Window interface, but that would require Bindings4DOM to include the
>> suggested "[Supplement]" idea [1], or similar.
>
> I think using [Constructor]ยน on the interface should be sufficient for
> the UA to be required to have the constructor on the window object.
How would that look on the interface?
"[Constructor] interface XMLHttpRequest { ... };"
?
> Should the Bindings spec require that the constructor return an object
> that implements that interface?
That would make sense I think.
Also, when will Web IDL define all the DOMString versus null versus
undefined thingies? XMLHttpRequest needs some of that too.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:42:14 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> The second example in section 4 "The XMLHttpRequest Object" states:
>
> "If iframe is a Window object client will have a pointer to
> iframe.document in the following example"
>
> There needs to be a comma after "Window object".
Fixed.
Thanks guys! Kind regards,
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 15:20:42 UTC