- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:48:42 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:58:52 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > 2) Is there any reason we cannot also use this "no browsing context" > > > clause to define document.cookie rather than having a special type > > > of Document object? Seems much better. > > > > Since the spec is already written... I can see cases where you could > > have a Document that had no browsing context but did have cookies. > > So... > > But there are no such cases currently. It would be nicer if the special > casing was the other way around so XMLHttpRequest did not have to say > anything. (And Web DOM Core when it is written.) I've changed the spec to do this automatically for browsing-context-free documents, so you can remove the text from XHR. (I still internally to the spec use the term, since data: documents still fall into that category.) > > > 6) If you provide some hook or tell me how to do it I can define the > > > origin of the Document returned by responseXML in XMLHttpRequest. > > > > HTML already defines this. Or do you mean we should move that to the > > XHR spec? > > That is what I meant, yes. Done. See the diff for sample text (in a comment). > > > If we can do all this that should turn it into a one-way dependency > > > with most definitions being completely self-contained. > > > > I'm not sure it's worth it in the case of the origin thing. > > So what happens when we define how to get a Document out of a File? We would update the HTML spec. Or, now, the File spec can define it. Either is fine by me. I still think that we should set up a post-processing step that merges all these specs into one anyway. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 15:48:42 UTC