- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:40:30 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17105
Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominicc@chromium.org
--- Comment #1 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> 2012-05-22 06:40:30 UTC ---
At one point we thought constructor= could point to an existing function, and
hence its prototype would be used (and checked that the base element’s
prototype was on the prototype chain.)
It would be nice to design something that was compatible with user-defined
constructor bodies in some future version.
The current situation is tenable; authors could just mix in behavior to the
prototype object that is created by the constructor generation algorithm.
If authors can specify a prototype, there’s a semantic question – do they
specify the object which is first link in the prototype chain, and a separate
prototype object is still synthesized; or do they specify the generated
constructor’s prototype directly?
The former case (prototype object is always synthesized) leaves open the
possibility of requiring GeneratedConstructor.prototype.constructor ===
GeneratedConstructor and implies that there is at least one unique prototype
object per custom element. These might be useful properties for implementers to
exploit.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:40:54 UTC