- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:27:15 -0400
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- 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>
On 4/2/12 6:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > 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? That seems like the simplest approach to me, yes. It's what Gecko does in practice anyway at the moment, afaict. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 00:27:40 UTC