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

Re: CSP 1.1 DOM design

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:35:25 -0800
Message-ID: <50983F2D.5000005@mit.edu>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-web-security@w3.org
On 11/5/12 2:16 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> If it's the latter, then I think either Boris' suggestion of having two
> interfaces, and stating in prose which one is implemented on Document,
> would be OK.  I think it'd be fine too to just make it not readonly in
> the IDL and for there to be a prose hook to do all the right
> throwing-or-ignoring things that you would normally get from assigning
> to an accessor property without a setter.

I don't see how the latter can really work.  As a simple example, if I 
grab a setter out of a property descriptor and then later call it, which 
code's strict mode is relevant?  The code that grabbed the setter or the 
code that called it?  Is there anything that requires an ES impl to 
actually keep track of strict mode for function calls?  Because I don't 
think Spidermonkey does anything like that....

-Boris
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 22:35:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 22:36:00 GMT