- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:22:21 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12320 --- Comment #4 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-03-16 22:22:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > I'm all for improving the wording though if you have suggestions (and assuming > Cameron is ok with it since I'm not an editor). Yes I am. That was written before the use case of whole DOMs implemented in JS came up. All of the language distinguishing "host objects" and "native objects" really needs to be rewritten using terms like "implementation objects" and "user objects" or so. If you have an ECMAScript DOM implementation, and an author writes something like that in comment 1, should we be requiring that to fail? I think the answer to that is yes, since we want consistent behaviour across implementations in this regard, and it would be a lot of spec and implementation effort for little benefit to require that to work, I think. -- 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 Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:22:22 UTC