- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 7/12/13 1:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > > On 3/5/13 3:30 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to merge the prototype objects for Document and > > > > > > > HTMLDocument, because I don't want to stick a named getter > > > > > > > on every document. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be fine with having a Document descendant that is used for > > > > > > Documents that have global scopes / browsing contexts / the > > > > > > works, and one that is used for Documents that don't (e.g. > > > > > > createDocument(), XHR); would that address this issue? > > > > > > > > > > It's one way to address it, yes... > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, this works for Mozilla, as long as it's clearly > > > > defined and other vendors are on board. Arv? > > > > > > Having not heard any interest from anyone else, I haven't done > > > anything. If there's movement here, let me know. > > > > That's because other UAs are just silently ignoring the spec as > > currently written, for the most part... > > I concur with Boris's concerns. So you also support having a Document descendant that is used for Documents that have global scopes / browsing contexts / the works, and one that is used for Documents that don't (e.g. createDocument(), XHR), where the former has the named getter and the latter doesn't? > Can we at least avoid having OverrideBuiltins on Document? Do you mean in general? Wouldn't that be non-backwards compatible? > Or can we keep HTMLDocument that just defines name getter? When would it be used? Are you agreeing with the proposal above? Or do you have something different in mind? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 18:44:00 UTC