- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:56:26 +0200
- To: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com> wrote: > In general, I'm happy to answer any "why did we did this instead of this" > questions. I would, however, caution that any attempts to significantly > re-engineer what we have would be incredibly costly. My main problem is that the Etherpad doesn't list all the invariants. E.g., that same-origin Location objects still need security checks was not listed. And one of Adam's concerns was not wanting to deal with non-ES5-stuff, whereas this depends heavily on proxies. So if we're going to have proxies anyway, do we really need to mint one per-origin? (It does seem like we need multiple underlying objects to deal with "expandos" properly.) And does minting a new object per-origin correctly deal with navigation, a case that is also not covered? I looked at the tests too and had some questions. https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/html/browsers/origin/cross-origin-objects/win-documentdomain.html talks about frameURI but that is never used. What is its function? https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/html/browsers/origin/cross-origin-objects/frame.html overrides window.frames. I guess that's just an example of overriding a property that's also whitelisted? Should that become a more expansive test also testing the other whitelisted properties? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 17:56:56 UTC