W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:27:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4F7A43E3.30504@mit.edu>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 4/2/12 6:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky:
>> And just to be clear, the discussion about security and document.domain
>> is somewhat orthogonal to the original issue. WebIDL requires that all
>> objects be associated with a particular global and that any spec
>> defining anything that creates an object needs to define how this
>> association is set up. For the particular case of constructors, that
>> means that either WebIDL needs to have a default (that particular specs
>> may be able to override) or that any spec that uses constructors needs
>> to explicitly define the global association (which is not quite
>> identical to things like which origin and base URI are used).
>
> Would it make sense to require objects that are returned from a
> constructor be associated with the same global that the constructor
> itself is?

That seems like the simplest approach to me, yes.  It's what Gecko does 
in practice anyway at the moment, afaict.

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 00:27:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:06 UTC