- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:32:28 -0800
- To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> On 12/13/12 6:01 AM, David Bruant wrote: >>> whenever the underlying window of a WindowProxy can change >> >> Which is always. >> >>> the internal operations ([[DefineOwnProperty]], >>> [[GetOwnProperty]]) must throw whenever they're about to commit to an >>> invariant. >> >> That's not ok, unfortunately, because for security reasons we must be able to define things that look like non-configurable properties on a window. Specifically, window.location needs to behave as if it were non-configurable for all intents and purposes; see the [Unforgeable] annotation in the spec there. The invariants say that you cannot claim to be non-configurable and then have observable changes that should have been possible. The invariants purposely allow the opposite "violation": a property can claim to be configurable but still refuse to be configured. This would be legal and solves your problem, but I think Allen's suggestion below is better. >> >>> More concretely, it means that a WindowProxy which can has its window >>> changed can't be made non-extensible >> >> This part is probably fine, though. >> >>> This change is not compatible with what's currently implemented in both >>> Chrome and Firefox, but I'm confident ES5 Object methods are not used a >>> lot in content and even less likely on WindowProxy instances, so I think >>> it's worth trying. >> >> So what do you propose getOwnPropertyDescriptor return for window.location? > > Note that the quoted invariants primarily are concerned with data properties. I would think that a non-configurable get only accessor property could do the job for window.location without violating those invariants. That sounds right to me. > > Allen > > > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 18:32:59 UTC