W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2014

[Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...]

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:34:22 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22646-3890-Jvu4MxzZnZ@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646

--- Comment #19 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> ---
I guess not? But shouldn't it be non-conforming for me to have an attribute
that returns an interface type that isn't exposed?

The dictionary is fine because the interface isn't exposed so you can't
possibly set the dictionary to a value that uses the interface. But the
attribute in theory could be used by a user agent in a way that returns that
interface even in a worker, despite the interface not being exposed... I dunno,
it just seemed like something that should be done for completeness.

How about this, is this ok?:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 20:34:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:51 UTC