- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:25:29 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12248 --- Comment #13 from Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org> 2011-03-08 03:25:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > No, it's an attempt to avoid creating unspecifiable ratholes. Boris, I sense hostility. What's up? No spec is complete. You know that. Economic law still applies. We do not specify everything, completely. Allen already observed that structured cloning is underspecified. The rathole is in the minds of spec writers and compleatists here. I write this with no bad feelings. It's not a problem in practice for implementors or web developers, so long as the [[Get]] internal operations used to access "keyword parameters" are done before any other steps in the given method's spec, and in a fixed order. Please respond to this without changing the subject to runaway recursion or other iloop equivalents. This was the first objection: that getters could have effects that would undermine the spec's integrity. I don't think it's true if you do what ES5 does. The integrity problem is solvable. The "availability problem" is harder, and it need not be specified. Indeed it is not, to my knowledge. E.g. Gecko has limits on iframe nesting, not matching any spec, and sometimes biting (e.g. WebSphere) content. This is not a real-world high priority, or even a rathole with implementors or developers. /be -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 03:25:30 UTC