- From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:02:08 +0900
- To: John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM, John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com> wrote: > I'm still trying to digest this, but it seem pretty clear the 'confinement' > is the "clear scope" thing I was asking about on es-discuss. According to > that discussion, this means needs to fit with the 'modules' thing on > ecmascript. That seems to be where you are headed, but basing a new proposal > on another new proposal is ... well I'll let you fill in the blank depending > on how you are feeling. Courageous? > I guess the actual implementation of confined script evaluation would not be > difficult (Firefox can do it now if you can get some one to explain it). > Getting the entire 'modules' effort out? I'm thinking that could be hard. > > jjb If we do the design so that good things are possible when modules arrive, and the component model is useful for some use cases even without hermetic confinement, then it sounds reasonable to work on specing, implementing and getting experience with the other parts?
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 07:02:33 UTC