- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:36:41 -0400
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 6/21/12 11:30 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Hmm... This thread was started with the problem that a WebIDL-compliant > does not allow to detect the "type" of an object cross-global. > Firefox does have a way to do it which is de-facto backward-compatible > and you're planning to break it to be WebIDL compliant. Well, and because it simplifies the code a bit. But yes, mostly because it's impossible to be WebIDL-compliant for us at the moment without breaking it. And I don't mean just in terms of what WebIDL requires for instanceof behavior; the requirement that the interface objects is a non-host Function object is a problem for this approach too. > My analysis is that the use case is legitimate, that Firefox (who was > here before WebIDL) has a good answer to it and that WebIDL should be > revised rather than Firefox. Seems fine to me. ;) > How bad would it be to make an exception here for WebIDL to be > implementable in ECMAScript terms? I don't know. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 15:37:14 UTC