W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Defining exotic objects in IDL, HTML, or both?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:19:38 -0400
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5621239A.6050800@mit.edu>
On 10/16/15 11:57 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> What I was trying to point out was that by speccing a sufficiently powerful proxy object we could stay entirely within ES semantics

While true, if I recall correctly abarth had objections to that 
specification approach because of the difficulty of proving that Blink's 
implementation is black-box indistinguishable from it.  So you probably 
want to consult with whoever is responsible for this stuff in Blink 
right now before going down this road.

> It sounded like you were proposing speccing a world where multiple different objects get minted and then we override the definition of ===, but I guess you were just talking about implementation strategies, and were not making a spec proposal.

I believe the intent of the current etherpad is to describe constraints 
in more or less those terms (which most closely match how Blink 
implements this stuff right now), but in a way that can map to different 
implementation strategies.  Again, the choice of specification language 
was largely to placate the Blink implementors into maybe even 
considering implementing the resulting spec.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 16:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 October 2015 16:20:16 UTC