- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:56:10 +0200
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "Tyler Close" <tyler.close@gmail.com>, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:34:09 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> I sort of like the idea of having a new (named) constructor or maybe >> have the constructor take an argument to indicate credentials are supposed >> to be omitted. This would also allow us to drop the withCredentials flag. > > * What drafts need revision to bring this about? Obviously, cors itself. I don't think CORS needs any changes for this. You simply ensure that the credentials flag is always false and that the source origin is a globally unique identifier. > And Adam's IETF I-D. Also in seems, < > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/>. Is this the right > version to start from? What other documents might need coordinated revision? > > * The existing XHR2 draft above specifies XMLHttpRequest in WebIDL as > > [Constructor] > interface XMLHttpRequest : XMLHttpRequestEventTarget { > //... API of instances... > }; > > In the favored style of WebIDL use, should I declare GuestXMLHttpRequest > to inherit from XMLHttpRequest, or should I move the above API to a shared > AbstractXMLHttpRequest and have both XMLHttpRequest and > GuestXMLHttpRequest > inherit from it? AFAICT, these should result in identical language > bindings, so it's only a question of specification easthetics. If we decide this is the right idea (and please do reply to my other emails regarding whether this feature is justified) we can add a named constructor. [Constructor, NamedConstructor=GuestXMLHttpRequest] interface XMLHttpRequest : ... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 08:57:00 UTC