Hi, Anne-
Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 5/27/08 6:24 PM):
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
Well... that's not quite a normative reference. :)
Could you please point to a specific request from a vendor requesting
that, rather than to your own email stating the claim?
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.
I'm not convinced that it's better, since this is an LC draft. That
means the WG thinks it's done, and thus that dependency will persist.
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.
Okay, I'll work on that.
"Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an
XMLHttpRequest() constructor."
Again, see Window Object spec.
The Window Object specification is not being maintained.
True. Maybe we need to reprioritize, then.
Hey, Browser Implementors! Anyone got an editor to spare?
"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.
Sure. Is there some reason this can't be made generic and left to the
host language to define?
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
Okay, thanks.
--
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
