- From: Steve Nester <steve@sahfor.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 22:16:37 +0000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimUYuT177eQRDei41X-eCzpFp6uSif5RbVUu6rK@mail.gmail.com>
I have one point for consideration regarding the scope. Ref Section: Cross-document messaging Consideration- should messaging be bi-directional? For example; in the example within the Cross-document messaging>Introduction section, document A calls the function causing an event to fire in document B. Document B should either be able to call a function causing an event to fire in document A OR document B should be able to return data to document A in response to document A's function call. i.e. Document A var o = document.getElementsByTagName('iframe')[0]; o.contentWindow.postMessage('Hello world', 'http://b.example.org/'); window.addEventListener ... Document B window.addEventListener('message', receiver, false); function receiver(e) { if (e.origin == 'http://example.com') { if (e.data == 'Hello world') { // e.source.postMessage('Hello', e.origin); * e.origin.returnMessage('value'); //??* } else { alert(e.data); } } } This would allow (along with others scenarios, I'm sure) for document A to resize the iframe window to the correct size of the document B window. This has been an issue which occurs in the use hosted payment pages nested in an iframe within e-commerce sites. Best regards Steve Nester On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote: > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working > Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of the > spec (copied from ED version 1.77): > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/publish/LCWD-webmessaging-201103TBD.html > > This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision > to request advancement" for this LCWD. > > Note the Process Document states the following regarding the > significance/meaning of a LCWD: > > [[ > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call > > Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: > > * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical > requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working > Draft; > > * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies > with other groups; > > * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these > dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is > also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical > report to later maturity levels. > ]] > > Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will > be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. The deadline for comments is > March 14. Please send all comments to: > > public-webapps@w3.org > > Assuming there is consensus to publish this LCWD, the tentative plan is to > publish it on March 17 with a the LC comment period ending June 1. > > -Art Barstow > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:35:42 UTC