On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:20:48 +0200, Cameron McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lachlan Hunt:
The XMLHttpRequest spec doesn't actually define what object is returned
by the XMLHttpRequest() constructor. It should define that an object
implementing the XMLHttpRequest interface must be created and returned.
Alternatively, the spec could just include a supplemental IDL for for
the Window interface, but that would require Bindings4DOM to include the
suggested "[Supplement]" idea [1], or similar.
I think using [Constructor]ยน on the interface should be sufficient for
the UA to be required to have the constructor on the window object.
How would that look on the interface?
"[Constructor] interface XMLHttpRequest { ... };"
?
Should the Bindings spec require that the constructor return an object
that implements that interface?
That would make sense I think.
Also, when will Web IDL define all the DOMString versus null versus
undefined thingies? XMLHttpRequest needs some of that too.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:42:14 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The second example in section 4 "The XMLHttpRequest Object" states:
"If iframe is a Window object client will have a pointer to
iframe.document in the following example"
There needs to be a comma after "Window object".
Fixed.
Thanks guys! Kind regards,
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
