On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:58, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres < > marcosscaceres@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 13:48, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > > > Marcos - would you please enumerate the CR's uses of HTML5 and state > > > > whether each usage is to a stable part of HTML5? > > > > > > 3. "When getting or setting the preferences attribute, if the origin > of a widget instance is mutable (e.g., if the user agent allows > document.domain to be dynamically changed), then the user agent must > perform the preference-origin security check. The concept of origin is > defined in [HTML]." > > > Origin is concept that is well understood - as is the same origin > policy used by browsers. > > > > > > TWI [1] does not define "the origin of a widget instance". > That's because they are not bound to any particular URI scheme. Just to > some origin. > > Nor does HTML5. It is also confusing to say that HTML5 defines the > 'concept of origin', given that it normatively refers to The Web Origin > Concept [2]. TWI needs to be more specific about what aspect of Origin is > being referenced and where that specific aspect is defined. > > As there are no interoperability issues, I don't agree the TWI spec needs > to be updated any further. It's just a simple spec and any further > clarifications would just be academic. > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-widgets-apis-20111213/ > > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6454 > in that case, please record an objection on my part
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:05:09 UTC