On Wed, 28 May 2008 00:58:45 +0200, Doug Schepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. :)
It was not a reference for that claim, it was a reference for the issue we
have. It seems you're suggesting you rather leave it underdefined?
Could you please point to a specific request from a vendor requesting
that, rather than to your own email stating the claim?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008May/0245.html
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.
It means the WG agrees that the concept referenced is important to the
draft. If the concept moves to another draft the WG would surely agree
that referencing the new draft where the concept is defined is acceptable.
More concrete, if Window moves out of HTML5 into its own separate
specification updating the XMLHttpRequest CR to point to this new
specification is a trivial matter. However, so far we have not seen any
evidence of that happening so it seems better to reference HTML5 as it is
still being updated in response to comments, etc.
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.
Great, though note that we reference DOM Level 2 Events currently as that
is more stable and does everything XMLHttpRequest requires. Referencing
DOM Level 3 Events instead would actually increase the number of instable
dependencies.
"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'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Note that we also rely on HTML5 for document.innerHTML to define proper
serialization of a Document object.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
