[XHR] Dependencies in XHR
Hi, WebAPI WG- 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). 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. 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 Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an XMLHttpRequest() constructor. Again, see Window Object spec. 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? 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? Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: [XHR] Dependencies in XHR
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 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. 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. Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an XMLHttpRequest() constructor. Again, see Window Object spec. The Window Object specification is not being maintained. 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. 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 -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [XHR] Dependencies in XHR
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
Re: [XHR] Dependencies in XHR
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Doug Schepers 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). [...] I believe that origin can be defined in the Window Object specification, one of this WG's explicit deliverables. Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an XMLHttpRequest() constructor. Again, see Window Object spec. Um, if we're going to be moving the references away from HTML5, could we at least move them to specs that have a chance of actually getting maintained sometime this decade? 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 That would be great, I'd love to offload this part of HTML5. Do you have a plan for how to resolve the dependency between event handler DOM attribute processing and the designMode DOM attribute? Also, please remember to deal with the mouseover event's quirk when doing this. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [XHR] Dependencies in XHR
Hi, Ian- Ian Hickson wrote (on 5/27/08 8:44 PM): On Tue, 27 May 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: I believe that origin can be defined in the Window Object specification, one of this WG's explicit deliverables. Objects implementing the Window interface must provide an XMLHttpRequest() constructor. Again, see Window Object spec. Um, if we're going to be moving the references away from HTML5, could we at least move them to specs that have a chance of actually getting maintained sometime this decade? Obviously, we would only move references if there were a spec that adequately covers the necessary material. If the Window Object spec is not taken up, then clearly it would be inappropriate. 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 That would be great, I'd love to offload this part of HTML5. Do you have a plan for how to resolve the dependency between event handler DOM attribute processing and the designMode DOM attribute? Also, please remember to deal with the mouseover event's quirk when doing this. (This seems like a sarcastic and combative reply, for no good reason.) Perhaps I misunderstood the issue. My impression was that Anne was referring to the definition for the onfoo event handlers, as stated in the HTML 5.0 spec: Event handler DOM attributes, on setting, must set the corresponding event handler attribute to their new value, and on getting, must return whatever the current value of the corresponding event handler attribute is (possibly null). [1] We had discussed, in the DOM3 Events telcons, that we might define the general mechanism for onfoo attributes, and their relationship to named events, addEventListener, et al. A host language, such as HTML or SVG, would define the specific event handler attributes appropriate to that language, and provide details about the event. The host language would also cover the particulars of the quirks you mention (so, sorry, but you're stuck with that task). Are you saying that this is not a useful addition to DOM3 Events? Or that you don't think that this adequately covers what is needed for XHR (which seems only to require a definition, from my reading)? I'm interested to hear your feedback on what would be useful for the DOM3 Events spec to say on the matter, beyond (on in contradiction to) what I have already described as the intent. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#event4 Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
