On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:59:38 +0200, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems that there are multiple dependencies upon HTML 5.0 in the XHR
specification. As Team Contact, I would like to caution against this
approach, as the HTML 5.0 specification is a long time from being
stable, and this hinders implementation (particularly for vendors who
sell their browsers, and must therefore market them).
Vendors have actually requested this. The problem is summarized here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0249.html
If possible, I would like to identify all dependencies and see if we can
remove them, or move them to a smaller, more manageable deliverable.
Anne (the editor) has helpfully marked these in the spec, which I
applaud as excellent speccing best practice.
"The terms origin and event handler DOM attribute are defined by the
HTML 5 specification."
I believe that "origin" can be defined in the Window Object
specification, one of this WG's explicit deliverables.
In theory it could, yes. Until someone has done that it seems better for
implementations to reference HTML5 as that has a better definition at the
moment.
We have discussed adding consideration for "event handler DOM attribute"
in the DOM3 Events spec, such that a host language can define what that
means in its context
Again, HTML5 currently has a better definition.
"Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an
XMLHttpRequest() constructor."
Again, see Window Object spec.
The Window Object specification is not being maintained.
"If there is a Content-Type header which contains a text/html MIME type
follow the rules set forth in the HTML 5 specification to determine the
character encoding. Let charset be the determined character encoding."
This is not, strictly speaking, a dependency. It is a matter of each
host language defining its own value for charset. Am I missing
something here?
It's about determining the character encoding out of a stream of bytes.
I know that everything in the spec is normative unless marked otherwise,
but I just wanted to make sure that none of the references are
informative?
There is one non-normative reference to HttpOnly cookies in the editor's
draft, see:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#bibref
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
