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

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:48:21 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25495-3890-oVKExZ6jVY@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25495

--- Comment #7 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
The simplest way to describe that is probably as follows:

1)  Every interface member has a set of globals where it's exposed.  If it has
an [Exposed] extended attribute this is the set specified in that extended
attribute.  Otherwise, if the interface or partial interface it was originally
defined on has an [Exposed] extended attribute it is the set specified in that
extended attribute.  Otherwise, this set is { "Window" } (though I think ms2ger
would prefer to nix this defaulting behavior and just make it an error to not
have [Exposed] on an interface).

2)  Every interface that is not [NoInterfaceObject] has a set of globals where
it its interface object is a property of the global.  This is given by the
[Exposed] extended attribute on the interface, or { "Window" } if there is no
such extended attribute.

3)  Optionally, make it an error to have a member of an interface, or one of
its consequential interfaces, that is exposed in a global the interface itself
is not exposed in.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 02:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC