Re: [XHR] LC comments from the XForms Working Group

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:47:24 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> The constructor and providing a pointer to the document from the object  
>> on which the constructor was invoked.
> So correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it work to say that if the  
> object the constructor is on is a Window things work as now and  
> otherwise whatever specification placed the constructor on some other  
> object is responsible for describing how one gets a document from that  
> object?

I suppose. Though it would create some path in the XMLHttpRequest  
specification we can't really test and it's not clear to me why we should  
do that.

Also, I forgot to mention that the definition of origin in HTML5 depends  
on Window and we really want to use the HTML5 definition of origin.

> Note that a lot of the text can still be shared (in terms of whether the  
> calling scope or callee object determines the "right" document to use);  
> all that depends on Window is how one actually gets the document, right?

Actually, no, origin depends on it too. I forgot about that because  
XMLHttpRequest just references origin directly.

>> Having basic Window support is also good for the test suite so we can  
>> actually test the cross-frame scenarios you raised a long time ago (for  
>> which I added this dependency when I addressed the issue).
> I don't see a problem with saying that the test suite requires a Window,  
> to be honest.  If we really wanted we could somehow flag the tests in  
> the test suite that really have that as a hard requirement, of course,  
> but realistically the tests are HTML files, aren't they?  So they would  
> always have a Window...

That's fair enough.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 15:55:43 UTC