- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:48:14 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote: > On 10/5/12 7:35 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > >> * What was the conclusion on whether properties for IDL operations also >> need to move down to be own properties? > > I don't know that we reached one. I think Brendan wanted to move them down. I don't think I have a strong opinion. Not sure what Travis thinks. Opera already has them down there, I think. The Chrome/Safari folks are being quiet as usual... > For Safari (or more broadly for WebKit-based ports that use JavaScriptCore): - We are ok with eventually changing non-global-object Web IDL properties to be getters/setters on the prototype instead of magical properties on the object itself, but we expect we'll have to do a fair bit of work to avoid this being a performance regression for our DOM bindings (theoretically it could even be a speedup if we do it right). - I don't think we have a problem with making the global object an exception. - Our current behavior is that methods of the Window object are on the prototype but other special properties are on the Window object itself. I don't personally know of a web compat issue with doing it one way or another. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to change it. WebKit V8 bindings often but not always match WebKit JSC bindings, but I can't speak for the opinions of Chrome or other V8-based WebKit ports. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 06:48:42 UTC