- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:56:02 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12458 --- Comment #8 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> 2011-04-13 21:56:01 UTC --- So, here's the interop story at the moment for Node: IE9: typeof Node // "object" FF4: typeof Node // "object" Safari5: typeof Node // "object" O11: typeof Node // "function" Chrome10: typeof Node // "function" (It's not as interoperable as I'd hoped.) There's certainly an argument to be made consistency with ES5 (i.e., change to "function"), and I get that. However, interface objects really are not typical constructors--and I think it's OK for them to be different in this regard. Case-in-point, interface prototype objects are also not the same as any of the prototypes in native JavaScript. For example, a "prototype" should be a prototypical instance of the constructor (e.g., Number.prototype _is_ a number instance, Function.prototype _is_ a function instance, etc., but clearly the interface prototype object does not follow these rules either, nor should it IMHO. Again, I think it's OK for interface objects to be different from a typeof perspective. I think the best path forward is to get Opera's bug fixed and Chrome should be able to respond quickly given their release cadence. At that point the high-order bit is interoperability. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 21:56:04 UTC