- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 23:21:21 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/2/12 6:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: >> >> Boris Zbarsky: >>> >>> And just to be clear, the discussion about security and document.domain >>> is somewhat orthogonal to the original issue. WebIDL requires that all >>> objects be associated with a particular global and that any spec >>> defining anything that creates an object needs to define how this >>> association is set up. For the particular case of constructors, that >>> means that either WebIDL needs to have a default (that particular specs >>> may be able to override) or that any spec that uses constructors needs >>> to explicitly define the global association (which is not quite >>> identical to things like which origin and base URI are used). >> >> Would it make sense to require objects that are returned from a >> constructor be associated with the same global that the constructor >> itself is? > > That seems like the simplest approach to me, yes. It's what Gecko does in > practice anyway at the moment, afaict. Note: WebKit has bugs in this regard, but we've been (slowly!) converging towards Gecko's behavior, which we believe is aesthetically correct. Adam
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 06:22:24 UTC