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 15:50:04 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25495-3890-imzUyYwlTg@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25495

--- Comment #9 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> ---
"exposure set" seems fine.

The new setup looks great with two caveats:

1)  This bit:

  If [Exposed] appears on both an interface and one of its interface
  members, then the interface member's exposure set MUST be a subset of
  the interface's exposure set.

should not require [Exposed] to appear on the interface itself.  In other
words, this:

  interface Foo {
    [Exposed=Worker] void method();
  };

should be invalid.

2)  Would it makes sense to require that if A inherits from B then the exposure
set of A is a subset of the one for B?  This is not covered by the
consequential interfaces bit, since B is not a consequential interface of A.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 15:50:05 UTC

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