- From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:02:22 +0100
- To: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Le 01/02/2013 05:20, Rick Waldron a écrit : > Isn't the intention of WebIDL to be language agnostic? To be clear, I > agree that there needs to be behaviour specification for the DOM w/r > to Proxy. I'm interested in the implications of WebIDL attempting > to specify a language specific behaviour without using that language's > own spec language. WebIDL contains an "ECMAScript binding" section where are defined WebIDL semantics for ECMAScript as well as ECMAScript-specific extended attributes. So if something had to be said about interaction with proxies, that'd probably be there. I imagine that the safe default (throwing on proxies) should be defined somewhere in 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 (attribute and operation ECMAScript semantics) and the opt-in to accept proxies should be somewhere around. I'm not sure where and how exactly yet, (that's why I have expressed high-level intentions and not specifically suggested changes). David
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 09:02:53 UTC