W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

[Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 14:02:09 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22320-3890-CdWc9gMlUF@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #13 from Mark S. Miller <erights@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Oh, and my point is, it's not clear to me that doing anything other than the
> simplest possible implementation of these objects is worth the time, pain,
> effort, and performance impact it would seemingly entail...
> If people come up with a proposal that behaves sanely and does _not_ entail
> those problems, so much the better, of course.

Hi Boris, thanks, I understand better now. Given all this, the proposal would
simply be to have getOwnPropertyNames return a list of all the own property
names. After all, that is what it is for and what it means. The operation was
not added on JavaScript on a whim, so it shouldn't be broken lightly. And you
agree that this would not create any compat issues.

The notion of "simplest" should be judged regarding the overall system, not of
the browser implementation taken by itself. Breaking expectations about
fundamental operations forces expensive workarounds on our users. For example,
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi prevented SpiderMonkey from being
considered SES-safe for a very long time. The workaround at
was only possible once we knew the worst case list of possible missing
properties. It doesn't sound like even this workaround would be possible in
this case.

There are a lot more users than implementors, and the complexity of
implementing getOwnProperties correctly is not unreasonable.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 14:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:17 UTC