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

Re: [whatwg] [[GetOwnProperty]] for named properties of the Window object

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:15:34 -0400
Message-ID: <52293AC6.5020108@mit.edu>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Ccing public-script-coord, since that's the right place for this 
discussion (because WebIDL is the relevant specification).

On 9/5/13 6:45 PM, Gavin Barraclough wrote:
> Firefox and Chrome both return descriptors from an object on the prototype chain per the spec

Chrome doesn't quite follow the spec here, for what it's worth: it 
returns them from Window.prototype as far as I can tell, not from an 
actual named properties object.

> attributes of the value are configured differently, with enumerable set to false, writable and configurable set to true.

Current tip Firefox returns 
{"configurable":true,"enumerable":true,"writable":true} and enumerates 
the properties.  Probably a change from 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=895758 to align better with 
the spec in terms of the enumeration behavior.

> There seem to be some compelling reasons to follow Firefox / Chrome (writable true seems more congruent with ECMA262 specified [[Put]]

Indeed.  I think the current setup in the spec would make window.foo not 
settable if <img id="foo"> exists....  That seems bad.

> unless there is another mechanism Iím missing here, enumerable is odd since I donít think the spec says anything about [[GetOwnPropertyNames]])

It doesn't, but it does talk about enumeration; see 
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#property-enumeration (whether 
that's applicable to the Named Properties Object is an interesting 

Granted, I would rather that were defined in terms of 
[[GetOwnPropertyNames]] on the relevant objects instead; that's what 
actually needs to happen under the hood anyway.

> ,so I was hoping to better understand why the spec requires the behaviour it does (or whether Iím just following it incorrectly!)

I think you're following it correctly; it's just buggy.  ;)

Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 02:16:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC