Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

(12/03/27 6:30), Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <
>> 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]

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.


Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:07:54 UTC