- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:01:46 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25495 Bug ID: 25495 Summary: Behavior of no [Exposed] on interface members is weird Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: WebIDL Assignee: cam@mcc.id.au Reporter: bzbarsky@mit.edu QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org CC: annevk@annevk.nl, cam@mcc.id.au, mike@w3.org, public-script-coord@w3.org The behavior of interface members with no explicit annotation is: the interface member – or a partial interface definition the interface member was declared on – was not declared with an [Exposed] extended attribute, and the ECMAScript global object implements the primary global interface. That means that if some interface is exposed in workers, all its members _also_ need to be annotated with [Exposed=Workers] (or be in a partial interface thus annotated). It would make more sense to me to make exposure be true by default for interface members, so you only need to annotate the ones that shouldn't be exposed somewhere, no? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 04:01:47 UTC