W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Notes from Monday's meeting with TC39 folks

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:26:50 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <BFCDDA29-8845-424F-A9B4-64BAC1CC28DA@mozilla.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> At first glance, I'm not keen on the idea of making DOM API behavior  
> depend on ES5 strict mode. Strict and non-strict code can mix  
> freely, so to do the mode switching you have to know what kind of  
> code is calling you - that seems yucky to implement and goes beyond  
> the intent of strict mode that nearly all of its effects can happen  
> at compile time.

For our "detecting context" that makes document.all not appear to be  
present when tested by if, ?:, &&, etc., as opposed to your always- 
present but falsy object, compile-time is the right time. Just noting  
this difference.


> Also, affecting DOM APIs seems like major scope creep for strict  
> mode. Right now, WebKit's DOM APIs have no idea what kind of code is  
> calling them and I don't relish adding that functionality.

Ok, good feedback. Thanks.


> By contrast, document-level quirks mode vs. standards mode is a  
> single global switch for the whole document. So it's much easier to  
> implement the switching and verify that its correct. If we need to  
> have switchable DOM API behavior, I'd rather base it on HTML  
> standards vs. quirks rather than ES strict vs. non-strict.

Are you open to making undetected-document.all emulation depend on an  
HTML standards vs. quirks mode switch?

Probably we should move now to public-html, if there is no WebIDL  
angle to any of this.

/be
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 18:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC