- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:02:33 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20567
Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dglazkov@chromium.org
--- Comment #19 from Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> ---
So we have 3 choices:
1) Don't reparent the prototype, leaving node wrapper as-is.
Pros: the simplest, least-surprise behavior. Works exactly as any JS object.
Cons: provides opportunities for turning documents into a mish-mash from
different scripting contexts and giant leaks.
2) Reparent the prototype, sort of doing the same thing WindowProxy does, but
on a node
Pros: does its best at keeping the document prototype relationships consistent
Cons: contains dark magic of swapping prototypes and wrapper-proxying, magic
that is not accessible to Muggles (web developers), still doesn't completely
eliminate the problem, since we're not re-parenting built-ins' prototypes.
3) Change identity of the node.
Pros: the cleanest, Gordian solution to the problem of prototype consistency in
the document.
Cons: may not be web-compatible.
Did I get this right?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 20:02:35 UTC