- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:33:57 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > At the upcoming TPAC, there is an opportunity for F2F coordination > between these two groups, and the time slot between 10 O'Clock and > Noon on Friday has been suggested for this. It would be nice if the coordination time slot wasn't at a time that the HTML WG is meeting, and perhaps was on a day the Web Apps WG is meeting or the plenary day. I say this because: A) It would be poor form for Sam and myself to miss one of the HTML WG sessions, but I suspect both of us will be interested in the Web Apps / ECMA TC 39 joint session. Or at least I am, having a great interest in Web IDL. B) Some Web Apps WG members may be attending TPAC only for the days Web Apps is meeting WG. Thus, a time slot on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of TPAC would be better. Regards, Maciej > > To help prime the pump, here are four topics suggested by ECMA TC39 > for discussion. On these and other topics, there is no need to wait > for the TPAC, discussion can begin now on the es-discuss mailing list. > > - - - > > The current WebIDL binding to ECMAScript is based on ES3... this > needs to more closely track to the evolution of ES, in particular it > needs to be updated to ES5 w.r.t the Meta Object Protocol. In the > process, we should discuss whether this work continues in the W3C, > is done as a joint effort with ECMA, or moves to ECMA entirely. > > - - - > > A concern specific to HTML5 uses WebIDL in a way that precludes > implementation of these objects in ECMAScript (i.e., they can only > be implemented as host objects), and an explicit goal of ECMA TC39 > has been to reduce such. Ideally ECMA TC39 and the W3C HTML WG > would jointly develop guidance on developing web APIs, and the W3C > HTML WG would apply that guidance in HTML5. > > Meanwhile, I would encourage members of ECMA TC 39 who are aware of > specific issues to open bug reports: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ > > And I would encourage members of the HTML WG who are interested in > this topic to read up on the following emails (suggested by Brendan > Eich): > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003312.html > and the rest of that thread > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003343.html > (not the transactional behavior, which is out -- just the > interaction with Array's custom [[Put]]). > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-May/009300.html > on an "ArrayLike interface" with references to DOM docs at the > bottom > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-June/002865.html > about a WebIDL float terminal value issue. > > - - - > > There are larger (and less precise concerns at this time) about > execution scope (e.g., presumptions of locking behavior, > particularly by HTML5 features such as local storage). The two > groups need to work together to convert these concerns into > actionable suggestions for improvement. > > - - - > > We should take steps to address the following "willful violation": > > If the script's global object is a Window object, then in JavaScript, > the this keyword in the global scope must return the Window object's > WindowProxy object. > > This is a willful violation of the JavaScript specification current > at > the time of writing (ECMAScript edition 3). The JavaScript > specification requires that the this keyword in the global scope > return the global object, but this is not compatible with the > security > design prevalent in implementations as specified herein. [ECMA262] > > - Sam Ruby > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 14:34:40 UTC