Mark Birbeck wrote:
Since when have W3C specifications been written only for certain
audiences?
Uh... Are you serious? The SVG Tiny specs aren't written for certain
audiences, for example?
The whole point of the process of review and 'last call' is
to get comments from various interested parties. You are saying that
you have already decided who the interested parties are.
I think it's more a matter of not all interested parties necessarily being
created equal. If you haven't read it yet, I urge you to read
<http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a>.
(Note that this is a general comment, not specific to this particular point
about Window.)
I don't really follow this.
For one thing, XMLHttpRequest same-origin checking needs to work the same exact
way as all otehr same-origin checking in the UA, to avoid introducing security
bugs. HTML5 will define same-origin checking in HTML. It was decided to
reference this rather than duplicating a large chunk of that spec and possibly
having spec skew).
If we have a better proposal for how that goal (that the same definition of
"same origin" is used everywhere) can be accomplished, I agree that would be nice.
Similar for the other things Window gives us now (base URI definition, etc).
Perhaps we should define how these things work when we're in a Window and make
it clear that any use of XHR in any other context will mean it's the other
context's responsibility to define exactly how XHR behaves there, and list all
the constraints such a definition must satisfy.
If browser vendors (of all shades, not just Microsoft) had
'taken the web into account' in the past, then Thomas Fuchs, Sam
Stephenson and John Resig would not be as celebrated as they are. So
forgive me if I don't trumpet the arrival of the cavalry in the form
of limited specifications created by some of the browser vendors.
I'm not sure I follow this. "Taking the web into account" does not preclude new
functionality; it just limits what the spec can do with already-implemented
functionality.
And before you reply about 'ivory towers', and 'designing for the real
web', etc., the XForms WG is only asking for one or two lines to be
added to the spec.
See above about ensuring certain things about security policy; it wasn't clear
to me that your addition addresses that issue sufficiently.
The frightening thing about your attitude here is that it is
completely counter to the prevailing trend that embraces code-sharing,
open source, anti-patents, open standards, and so on.
Just as a note, open source doesn't mean arbitrary changes or features are
accepted. Neither should open standards, though it often seems like they do
work that way.
(That's not a comment on the particular suggestion here; just a general
philosophical point in response to your general claim.)
-Boris
