On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:58, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]
> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 13:48, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > > Marcos - would you please enumerate the CR's uses of HTML5 and state
> > > whether each usage is to a stable part of HTML5?
> >
> > 3. "When getting or setting the preferences attribute, if the origin of a
> > widget instance is mutable (e.g., if the user agent allows document.domain
> > to be dynamically changed), then the user agent must perform the
> > preference-origin security check. The concept of origin is defined in
> > [HTML]."
> > Origin is concept that is well understood - as is the same origin policy
> > used by browsers.
>
>
> TWI [1] does not define "the origin of a widget instance".
That's because they are not bound to any particular URI scheme. Just to some
origin.
> Nor does HTML5. It is also confusing to say that HTML5 defines the 'concept
> of origin', given that it normatively refers to The Web Origin Concept [2].
> TWI needs to be more specific about what aspect of Origin is being referenced
> and where that specific aspect is defined.
As there are no interoperability issues, I don't agree the TWI spec needs to be
updated any further. It's just a simple spec and any further clarifications
would just be academic.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-widgets-apis-20111213/
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6454
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
