- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:46:37 +0000
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26322
Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |watsonm@netflix.com
--- Comment #1 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> ---
Is this something that WebIDl could or should solve for us ? That is, does (or
could) WebIDL provide a pattern that we can just reference ?
What I believe we want to achieve is
1) from a read / inspection perspective, that the script can treat these
attributes as if there were a JS object and Array respectively
2) writing to these attributes or into the object / Array doesn't affect the
behaviour of the CryptoKey object or clones of the CryptoKey object. In fact in
my view it should throw an exception, but I'm not sure if that is a supported
pattern ?
Ideally there would be a way we could define this without having to refer to
language-internal concepts like 'internal slots'.
As for issues like when functions on the Object and Array prototypes (which may
have been modified by the script) are called during the construction and use of
CryptoKey objects, I don't think we much care, except that it should be
consistent across implementations (and ideally consistent across different
platform objects following similar patterns).
What is the simplest way to achieve that consistency ? The
[[exposed_algorithm]] thing seems a little clunky.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 15:46:38 UTC