W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > November 2012

Re: CSP 1.1 DOM design

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:56:11 +0100
Message-ID: <50979B4B.9010203@gmail.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-web-security@w3.org
Le 05/11/2012 11:32, Alex Russell a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu 
> <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>     On 11/4/12 3:58 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>              DOMString toString();
>
>
>     This should probably be:
>
>       stringifier;
>
>     instead (which in ES will produce a toString on the prototype, but
>     is more clear about the point, and might do different things in
>     other binding languages).
>
>
> Other binding languages don't matter, but OK.
I heard Google is working on this "Dart" thing. Unless Google redefine 
APIs for every single web browser capability, it will probably need to 
define WebIDL bindings for Dart. But what do I know...

>     Another thing to think about is whether reportURIs should really
>     be an IDL array (which does NOT produce a JS array on the JS side,
>     so it really depends on the expected use cases).
>
>
> I'll advocate for a JS array wherever we surface an array-like 
> collection. It's long past time that we stopped shitting on users with 
> ad-hoc collection types.
Arguably, ES6 symbols may give a re-birth to ad-hoc collection types by 
allowing safe (uncollidable) extension of built-ins. I think an IDL 
array is fine (as far as I can tell, the difference with a regular array 
is just a different prototype).

David
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 10:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 10:56:42 GMT