- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:04:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Krzysztof MaczyĆski <1981km@gmail.com>
- cc: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007272240260.7470@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Krzysztof MaczyĆ~Dski wrote: > > [a] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/ > > 0. In [a]: > > The W3C Web Apps Working Group > It's either "WebApps" or "Web Applications" according to the charter. Fixed. > 1. [a] references HTML5 which is unlikely to go to Rec any time soon. > What path do you envision following to resolve this? Waiting. There's no rush to get to REC. > 2. In [a]: > > HTTP 302 Found, 303 See Other, and 307 Temporary Redirect responses > > must cause the user agent to connect to the new server-specified URL, > > but if the user agent needs to again request the resource at a later > > point, it must return to the previously specified URL for this event > > source. > Does it include only requesting a representation of the resource using > the same EventSource object, the same browsing context, or globally (as > long as the UA remembers having requested it before)? Is this consistent > (especially for 303) with HTTP semantics? Clarified. > 3. In [a]: > > Any other HTTP response code not listed here, and any network error > > that prevents the HTTP connection from being established in the first > > place (e.g. DNS errors), must cause the user agent to fail the > > connection. > I'm unsure whether it doesn't violate semantics of some HTTP codes > already defined. But it surely imposes limits on what future codes may > indicate, flying in the face of this extensibility point. All that this > spec should say about the potentially coming unknown is that semantics > of other codes must be applied as required for them. That doesn't seem like it would lead to great interoperability in the face of errorneous servers. > 4. text/event-stream uses text before / which is inappropriate and > should be application. Entities of type text must be, at least as the > last resort, feasible for rendering to the user as text (which not any > sequence of octets is, e.g. text/html, but application/msword). text/event-stream can be rendered to the user, it's just text. > 5. In [a]: > > formats of event framing defined by other applicable specifications > > may be supported > What is event framing? A structure for demarking events. > Additionally, are we going to have âother applicable specificationsâ > extension point everywhere? It's what pretty much everything on the Web uses, from IP all the way to JS, so apparently yes. > For the moment it's just a beast dwelling in the HTML5 spec, tolerated > until it gets its extensibility story straight, but if it's going to > affect other specs in this way, the TAG should certainly have a look. I don't understand. This is how all specs are extended. Are you just referring to it being explicit? It seems better to be explicit rather than leaving things implied like most specs do. > 6. Section 10 of [a] seems something new in W3C's LCs. What is the story > behind specifying requirements on finalization (note that this name is > better, since "garbage collection" looks like limiting this behaviour to > environments with a GC) and some rules stating when a spec should > include them? The story is that it is needed in this case so as to define behaviour that is interoperably implementable. > Has there been any architectural discussion about it? What is "architectural discussion"? > [b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/ > > 7. In [b]: > > The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA262, rather than the > > official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more widely > > known. > The term "JavaScript" already refers to a proprietary implementation of > ECMAScript. A confusion should not be entrenched further just because > it's common. Clarity will be appreciated by intended readers of the > spec, of whom knowledge of this distinction can be safely assumed. The > term is unused anyway. This is just part of the boilerplate used in specs that are really sections of the WHATWG Web Apps 1.0 spec published through the WebApps WG. > 8. In [b]: > > To mitigate this, pages can use SSL. > Please change to TLS which is the standard name. Fixed. > 9. [b] states more precise requirements on scripts running in the > context of an HTMLDocument than otherwise. Should some of them apply > more widely? I don't understand the question. > [c] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/ > > 10. In [c]: > > the MIME type of the script is ignored > This is a new spec. It shouldn't be plagued with such idiosyncratic > legacy mechanisms. It's a new spec that has to work with existing deployed content. > 11. In [c]: > > there is no way to override the type. It's always assumed to be > > JavaScript. > This is a violation of orthogonality for no real benefit. The benefit is simplicity. > 12. In [c]: > > If there are any outstanding transactions that have callbacks > What's a transaction, when has it got a callback? Added a reference. > 13. Why does [c] define ErrorEvent instead of reusing DOMError? Primarily because DOMError is not an event. > Besides, it uses a misnamed attribute "filename" and suboptimally > spelled "lineno". Not sure what you mean. These are based on legacy names used in the window.onerror platform feature. > 14. In [c]: > > Thus, scripts must be external files with the same scheme as the > > original page: you can't load a script from a data: URL > Why impose this restriction? So that we can do cross-origin shared workers in the future. > I suggest allowing workers to be instantiated with Function objects > (whatever this may be in language bindings, given positive resolution of > 11) as well. Including workers directly inline seems natural in many > scenarios. What's the use case? We wouldn't be able to use a Function object, since that would have all kinds of cross-thread implications. We could use a string, but Gears had that API and it went basically unused. > 15. Why using URI fragments is not allowed when instantiating workers? What would they mean? (Disallowing them now means we might be able to use them if necessary later.) > If it remains so, the spec should say that used URIs MUST be absolute > (keeping unchanged the behaviour in the other case as error recovery). Why? > 16. In [c]: > > The DOM APIs (Node objects, Document objects, etc) are not available > > to workers in this version of this specification. > I understand this as not being forbidden if an implementation provides > such an extension. However, those APIs would operate on nodes floating > in the air, unrelated to any document possibly opened. > > 17. Isn't there already something like WorkerLocation specced? How do you mean? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 23:05:22 UTC