- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:07:27 +0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
(12/03/27 6:30), Glenn Adams wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu < > kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > >> (12/03/27 5:43), Glenn Adams wrote: >>> my position is that, unless somewhere it is documented what the >> convention >>> "associated with" means, that it is (1) ambiguous, and (2) can be >>> interpreted in any of the above four ways; >> >> This is still lacking context, but in general I agree with you. >> > > The specific context this came up in is [1]. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16299 For this particular example, I sort of agree that a creative UA can make XMLHttpRequest reuse an existing XMLHttpRequestUpload and still claim the UA conforming to the current text, although it seems to be too theoretical to the point that I think we can allow editors to choose his/her editorial style. For what it's worth, this is how the HTML spec says about MesseageChannel and it's associated ports: # When the MessageChannel() constructor is called, it must run the # following algorithm: # # 1. Create a new MessagePort object owned by the script's global # object, and let port1 be that object. # # 2. Create a new MessagePort object owned by the script's global # object, and let port2 be that object. # 3. Entangle the port1 and port2 objects. Note the "new"s for the ports there, and "Entabgle" links to the steps that does the association. This is XMLHttpRequest: # The XMLHttpRequest() constructor must return a new XMLHttpRequest # object. and a separated # Each XMLHttpRequest object also has an associated # XMLHttpRequestUpload object. . I know people who think the HTML spec is exceedingly verbose, so I am not sure it's really the best style that should be used everywhere. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:07:54 UTC