W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:46:23 +1000
Message-ID: <4F7A2C3F.8040007@mcc.id.au>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:06 UTC