- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:41:52 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12248 --- Comment #15 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-03-08 03:41:51 UTC --- Brendan, there's no hostility. I think there's just a difference in assumptions. > No spec is complete. Yes, but that may not be a good thing, given past web experience. > Allen already observed that structured cloning is underspecified. That's not a good thing either. > It's not a problem in practice for implementors or web developers, so long as > the [[Get]] internal operations used to access "keyword parameters" are done > before any other steps in the given method's spec, and in a fixed order. I could live with that, probably. I said so in comment 3. Repeating an earlier argument from private mail (with some irrelevant parts snipped): Some of the people in this discussion have as a high priority preserving JS semantics in all cases, so they think losing non-data properties on objects passed as a way of grouping some data is a worse deal than the possibility of underspecified behavior due to weird getters. I'm not entirely sure I agree myself; I see the use of getters here as a definite edge case, and at that point the question becomes how much that edge case is worth catering to. Is it worth the fact that behavior will have to be explicitly undefined in some cases (and that this set of cases may not even be describably adequately)? Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. -- 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 Tuesday, 8 March 2011 03:41:53 UTC