- From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:56:44 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Le 15/12/2012 17:37, Boris Zbarsky a écrit : > On 12/15/12 8:36 AM, David Bruant wrote: >>> Detecting that might be annoying enough to not be worthwhile, though. >> Annoying for maintainability? for performance? > > Mostly for maintainability: you have to whitelist the properties or > something. > > Though maybe if you never allow defining other non-configurable > properties the WindowProxy could just assume that anything > non-configurable that _has_ made it through to the Window is legit and > just report them all as non-configurable. Indeed. >> That point is important. If WindowProxy can reflect [Unforgeable] >> properties as configurable, then it changes the definition of >> [Unforgeable]. > > I don't see how it does. [Unforgeable] is just defined in terms of > what it puts on the Window. WebIDL says that [Unforgeable] attributes must be reflected as non-configurable properties [1]. If WindowProxy allows to reflect [Unforgeable] differently, this needs to be documented somehow, but it doesn't seem to be the current consensus (which is non-configurable accessors). David [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-attributes
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2012 16:57:14 UTC