W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2014

[Bug 25495] New: Behavior of no [Exposed] on interface members is weird

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:01:46 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25495-3890@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25495

            Bug ID: 25495
           Summary: Behavior of no [Exposed] on interface members is weird
           Product: WebAppsWG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: WebIDL
          Assignee: cam@mcc.id.au
          Reporter: bzbarsky@mit.edu
        QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: annevk@annevk.nl, cam@mcc.id.au, mike@w3.org,
                    public-script-coord@w3.org

The behavior of interface members with no explicit annotation is:

  the interface member – or a partial interface definition the interface member
  was declared on – was not declared with an [Exposed] extended attribute, and
  the ECMAScript global object implements the primary global interface.

That means that if some interface is exposed in workers, all its members _also_
need to be annotated with [Exposed=Workers] (or be in a partial interface thus
annotated).  It would make more sense to me to make exposure be true by default
for interface members, so you only need to annotate the ones that shouldn't be
exposed somewhere, no?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 04:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC