On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <[email protected]> wrote: > This is quite convoluted, but precise. The last "object" could perhaps be > "instance" to make it clearer? However, my proposal is to move this text to > the constructor section (4.2 Constructors), for example as a new 3rd step in > the first numbered list, and simplify it to read: > > "Let document be the document associated with the global object of the > XMLHttpRequest interface object."
You'd also need to check the JavaScript global environment. > Anne responded: > >> You cannot just move it to the constructor without introducing some >> other XHR-wide variable. > > Sorry Anne, you could probably edit the XHR spec asleep... What I mean is that <var>-variables are scoped to the algorithm they are used in. So you need to re-introduce <dfn title=concept-XMLHttpRequest-document>document</dfn> or some such. >>> I also believe the implementation difference can not be observed from JS. >> >> Not if you make the same requirements, no... > > I believe both the old text and the proposal would end up with *document* > referencing the same document, even in corner cases. If I'm missing something > please explain, thanks. My comment meant to indicate that if you move requirements around you will not have a difference. However, if you remove requirements as done in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/fe301b5c5917 (later reverted) you will. > (Just for the record, the corner cases we need to consider here include stuff > like > var xhr=new iframe.contentWindow.XMLHttpRequest() This is not a corner case in actual content. If it was we would made it work the same way it does in Workers. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
