Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:09:40 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 3/31/12 2:15 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> Boris Zbarsky:
>>> What's the document associated with xhr? Is it w1.document,
>>> w2.document, or window.document? The concept "the Window object for
>>> which the XMLHttpRequest interface object was created" doesn't seem to
>>> be defined anywhere....
>>
>> I don't have a <dfn> for it, but
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-initial-object says that each
>> global environment has a set of interface objects, and in
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-platform-objects I use the term
>> "associated with", but again not wrapped in a <dfn>.
>
> Sure.  And the latter section says:
>
>    It is the responsibility of specifications using Web IDL to state
>    which global environment (or, by proxy, which global object) each
>    platform object is associated with.
>
> And my point is that the XHR spec doesn't state that.  Stating that the  
> return value is associated with the same global environment as the  
> constructor that was used to create it would do the trick.
>
> On the other hand, maybe that should just be in WebIDL?  Are there use  
> cases for constructors which create platform objects associated with a  
> different global than the constructor itself?

I believe some things in the HTML spec uses the entry script, at least for  
the purpose of choosing origin or base URL. For instance: WebSocket,  
Worker.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 04:59:38 UTC