- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:45:08 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23682 Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |allen@wirfs-brock.com --- Comment #1 from Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> --- In general, I think this is a quite reasonable set of rules. (In reply to Jonas Sicking from comment #0) >... > > > For E we should simply accept an iterable object. Probably need to define on > a per-API basis if data of the wrong type inside the array is ignored or if > it causes a TypeError exception. An API should identify whether it retains a reference to an object, or not. If an API retains a reference it will have visibility of any subsequent changes to the object by the JS code. So, if an API does not what to be affected by subsequent changes to the object it needs to either either copy the data from the object (and not retain a reference) or require that it only be passed a frozen object. I suggest you decide upon the most common case (retained or not retained) and add a attribute that explicitly identifies the less common case. Ideally, retained objects would be least common, but it may be that in the context of DOM tree manipulation that isn't the case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 18:45:09 UTC