W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [powerful-features] Talking about the "incumbent settings object" of a document makes no sense

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:46:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=db9Rbbe5hX-ERSVHPivNzBJOWYwn_w1T7cpfSdnc7eEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/#settings-secure
> step 2.2.2 talks about "ancestor’s incumbent settings object" where
> "ancestor" is a document.  But "incumbent settings object" is a property of
> the JS callstack, not of a document.
>
> I assume that what you mean here is the "relevant settings object" of the
> document's global or something along those lines?


Hrm. Yes. I think that is what I mean. Does
https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commit/a9c195b4e783b82df93f1415369d9e9c9afd7138
look reasonable?


> But mail coming up about how this whole part of the algorithm is not
> necessarily sensical...


Thanks again for the feedback. I appreciate it!

-mike

--
Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2015 07:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:13 UTC