- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:05:58 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky:
>
>> So we have indications that making everything on this
>> interface unforgeable is sufficiently web-compatible.
>
> OK. I propose then that we allow [Unforgeable] on the interface, which
> means:
>
> * attributes get own, non-configurable accessor properties (with setters if
> they are not readonly attributes), and no property on the prototype
> * operations get own, non-configurable, non-writable properties, and no
> property on the prototype
> * the stringifier gets an own, non-configurable, non-writable toString
> property, and no property on the prototype
> * there is an own, non-configurable, non-writable valueOf property that just
> returns this
>
> I think that's the least amount of crazy.
>
> This would make Location.prototype empty. Is that OK?
That looks like what Chrome does:
$ location.__proto__.hasOwnProperty("href")
false
$ location.__proto__.hasOwnProperty("host")
false
Adam
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 00:07:02 UTC