- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:05:29 +0100
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:04, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com (mailto: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) (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 > What, exactly, are you objecting to? Can you demonstrate that there is an issue?
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:06:04 UTC