- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:39:48 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > That being to have the non-ES behavior of using the "this" object to > determine the Realm, yes? Yeah, if we keep that we'd have to define that somehow. It will become weird of course if objects move into becoming ES library objects over time. See ArrayBuffer and friends, promises in Gecko. > For the case of things like this that have associated attributes, I would > really prefer it if we could somehow specify it only once instead of > specifying the slot _and_ the attribute (and risking them diverging). Fair, we could make one imply the other. Being able to define defaults would still be good. If we do that then IDL will have to define that readonly attribute DOMImplementation implementation; creates an [[implementation]] internal slot that DOM can refer to in prose (not sure how to nicely cross-reference that) and that upon creation of Document, it is filled with an instance of DOMImplementation. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 17 November 2014 15:40:14 UTC