On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:13:52 +0200, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
This is exactly how postMessage() works and it seems nice to align
with that.
I am very strongly against this syntax as it gives a false sense of
security. To the point where I don't think I'd be willing to implement
it in firefox. The fact that postMessage allows this sounds very
unfortunate and something that I will look into fixing in that spec.
Let me know how that works out. postMessage() is shipping already in
various implementations...
I don't want to carry this mistake forward into Access-Control.
It seems bad to do something totally different, especially since it's
pretty obvious what the net result is.
Additionally, the way the spec was written before we could create a
conformat implementation now without having to worry about HTML5
changing things under us.
Well, in the end we want all those concepts implemented in the same way
everywhere, right? So I'm not sure how this matters.
So why not let HTML5 refer to Access-Control?
I don't really see how that would work.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
