This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 26722 - "opaque identifier" is underdefined
Summary: "opaque identifier" is underdefined
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: URL (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Anne
QA Contact: sideshowbarker+urlspec
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 26221
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2014-09-02 21:58 UTC by Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
Modified: 2015-05-22 12:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-02 21:58:06 UTC 
http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#origin

The term "opaque identifier" doesn't say what the identifier should be. Should it just be the string "pineapple"? That's an opaque identifier. Does every URL that would return an opaque identifier get the same opaque identifier? Does the same URL get the same opaque identifier each time? When is the identifier minted?

I think it should probably be "a new globally unique identifier", rather than "an opaque identifier".
Comment 1 Anne 2014-09-03 09:09:52 UTC 
A dump. I confused data type with data value. However, that reaches an interesting question. Should it be a globally unique identifier for the URL's scheme data or just a new globally unique identifier each time? I guess it should be constant per URL?
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-03 20:30:43 UTC 
If it's constant per URL, then two otherwise unrelated pages that happen to have been generated from the same URL will end up being in the same origin. I don't think that's what we want.
Comment 4 Simon Sapin 2015-05-22 12:40:10 UTC 
The commit message says "Opaque identifier is a type, not a value". I don’t understand what this means. It also doesn’t seem to answer "When is the identifier minted?".