- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:46:23 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky: > And just to be clear, the discussion about security and document.domain > is somewhat orthogonal to the original issue. WebIDL requires that all > objects be associated with a particular global and that any spec > defining anything that creates an object needs to define how this > association is set up. For the particular case of constructors, that > means that either WebIDL needs to have a default (that particular specs > may be able to override) or that any spec that uses constructors needs > to explicitly define the global association (which is not quite > identical to things like which origin and base URI are used). Would it make sense to require objects that are returned from a constructor be associated with the same global that the constructor itself is?
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 22:47:15 UTC