- From: Sebastian Markbåge <sebastian@calyptus.eu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:40:41 +0200
Sorry, same domain policy is clearly defined. I just missed it. > Compare the resulting absolute URL to the document's address. If any part > of these two URLs differ other than the <path>, <query>, and <fragment> > components, then raise a SECURITY_ERR exception and abort the pushState() > steps. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Sebastian Markb?ge <sebastian at calyptus.eu>wrote: > Jonas, > > That is my interpretation too. But I think it's a little unclear whether > that means that the UA should update any Location fields in the UI. I > understand that this may be optional or outside the scope, but I think that > it should still be mentioned. > > Now if the UA is suppose to update the Location field, shouldn't push state > URL be subject to same-domain policies? Is that defined clearly? > > Otherwise, this can be used during phishing attacks. > > Sebastian > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Nathan Hammond <nathan at nathanhammond.com>wrote: > >> Hey Jonas et al.: >> Thanks for the reply, forgive my disbelief on Clarification 1. :) If I'm >> completely with you, that is entirely unexpected on my part (and I've read >> this part of the spec a few times). Is this to imply that, no matter what >> the arguments to pushState(), if the path is relative to the current URL >> there will be no request for a new document and no user-agent initiated >> network activity? >> >> This is a behavior I'm fine with and will meet my needs just as well, I >> was simply expecting to have to use the approach from Clarification 2 in >> order to retain my document object. It does however lend itself to some >> confusion when paired with user agents that don't yet support the history >> portions of the spec as they will have to be handled with hash-based >> addressing while those that support pushState() will have more sane >> URLs--but that is no matter in the grand scheme of things. >> >> Also, that would imply that the popstate only fires when you're navigating >> through history. Is that correct? >> >> Thanks! >> Nathan >> >> >> On Jul 30, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Nathan Hammond<nathan at nathanhammond.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Clarifications >>>> 1. window.history.pushState({}, "Title", >>>> "/path/to/new/file.html?s=newvalue#newhash") replaces the current >>>> document >>>> object with the one specified by the new URL. It then causes the event >>>> popstate to fire immediately after the load event, correct? >>>> >>> >>> No. The above line with change the uri of the existing document to be >>> "http://example.com/path/to/new/file.html?s=newvalue#newhash" (with >>> the part before 'path' obviously depending on where the original page >>> lives). >>> >>> So no network activity takes place and the Document node remains the >>> same. Also no popstate event is fired. >>> >>> 2. window.history.pushState({}, "Title", "#newhash") creates a new >>>> history >>>> state object with the specified data object, the specified title, the >>>> same >>>> document object, and a location object that replaces the existing hash >>>> with >>>> "#newhash", correct? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> / Jonas >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090730/9074f209/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 07:40:41 UTC