- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:18:12 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > I expect this is generally quite feasible for all the things that are > [NewObject], with the notable exception of createElement and other > Node-creating methods. Okay so: 1) We probably want [LegacyNewObject] and [NewObject] to distinguish those two cases. 2) We want IDL to introduce the concept of internal slots. I haven't really come up with a scenario yet where basing this on existing attribute definitions is not sufficient. This will require refactoring prose in specifications. 3) We want IDL to have attribute defaulting, to define what their associated internal slots have as initial value (pure convenience). 4) We want IDL to define creation of objects and allocation of slots in more detail. In particular around Realms. Anything else? Shall I file dedicated bugs? > For non-[NewObject] things, as discussed up-thread, the ES behavior is not > all that desirable. So what is an example that would still be different between IDL and JS? Seems unfortunate. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 17 November 2014 17:18:39 UTC