Bug 17645 - Define more precisely what the "origin" of the IDBEnvironment is
Define more precisely what the "origin" of the IDBEnvironment is
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Indexed Database API
unspecified
PC All
: P2 normal
: ---
Assigned To: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
public-webapps-bugzilla
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-06-29 01:57 UTC by Jonas Sicking
Modified: 2013-02-01 23:14 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jonas Sicking 2012-06-29 01:57:11 UTC
Specifically, we should make it clear that document.domain doesn't affect indexedDB at all.
Comment 1 Israel Hilerio [MSFT] 2012-07-23 21:55:52 UTC
In IE we use the FQDN, protocol, and a GUID to define the db origin.  This doesn't include the port number. That means that for http://www.microsoft.com, we’ll use the complete string to define our origin and add a special GUID to it.  From that perspective, modifying the values for document.origin will have no impact on our operations.  However, I can see how other implementers could've done this differently without affecting the end result.

Are you looking for a note like:

"The origin of the IDBEnvironment is calculated in part by using the Fully Qualified Domain Name.  However, changes to the document.domain attribute won't have any impact this computation."
Comment 2 Eliot Graff 2013-01-31 17:38:07 UTC
Commit #375

Section 3.1.1 now contains:

A database's origin is the same as the origin of the document or worker. Each origin has an associated set of databases. 

and the following note:

Note   The database origin is not affected by changes to document.domain.
Comment 3 Anne 2013-01-31 19:54:44 UTC
Note that origin does include the port, so IE's implementation has a bug if comment 1 is correct.
Comment 4 Israel Hilerio [MSFT] 2013-02-01 23:14:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note that origin does include the port, so IE's implementation has a bug if
> comment 1 is correct.

That is correct.  I didn't mean to imply it didn't on my response.