- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:30:01 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Brendan Eich wrote: > > Thinking this through, I have two general approaches for alternative 3 > in mind, hope it's ok to throw them out quickly: > > (3a) underspecify document.all as a host object property that may be > reliably tested only by if, &&, ||, == null, == undefined, and ! and the > != counterparts. Anything else is unspecified behavior. Personally I would be against underspecifying anything that can be black-box tested from a Web page. > (3b) specify document.all as an ES-Harmony value type, details TBD but > this allows overloading operators including ! and == but not === (at > least not in the discussions we've had yet), and overloading ToBoolean. Sounds good to me. Is this basically equivalent to what HTML5 says today? http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html#dom-document-all (Except without violating ES! :-) ) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 00:19:05 UTC