W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > September 2006

Re: XMLHttpRequest test suite suggestion

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:41:55 -0700
Message-Id: <CF93EF60-940A-43B7-AD8E-1DDBAD757EDF@apple.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>

On Sep 26, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> You can't use "apply" with "new". What part of the spec says you can?
> I haven't been able to find the part of the spec that addresses  
> this at all.  So the question could also be posed as "What part of  
> the spec says you can't?"

"new" invokes the [[Construct]] internal property rather than the  
[[Call]] internal property, and Object.apply does not have the former.

Or to put it in slightly plainer English, you can only use "new" with  
a constructor, not a function, and while every user-defined function  
is a constructor, the same is not true of host functions; they can  
only be invoked as a constructor when the spec says so.

> And apply is just an example; I don't know enough about the twisty  
> details of ECMA to figure out what all else could be done to  
> transplant functions; every time I think I've seen it all someone  
> posts another security exploit that uses parts of ECMA I've never  
> heard of in weird ways.  ;)

I agree there can be strange edge cases at times, but this is not one  
of them afaict. Keep in mind that that the potential transplant here  
is a constructor, not a function.

> Again, my real issue is that the attempt at "definition" that  
> currently exists in the XMLHttpRequest spec doesn't make it clear  
> what the terms it's using mean.

I agree the definition should be clear, I'll try to review the  
existing one and suggest more precise wording if needed.

Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 17:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC