W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Defining exotic objects in IDL, HTML, or both?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:19:38 -0400
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5621239A.6050800@mit.edu>
On 10/16/15 11:57 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> What I was trying to point out was that by speccing a sufficiently powerful proxy object we could stay entirely within ES semantics

While true, if I recall correctly abarth had objections to that 
specification approach because of the difficulty of proving that Blink's 
implementation is black-box indistinguishable from it.  So you probably 
want to consult with whoever is responsible for this stuff in Blink 
right now before going down this road.

> It sounded like you were proposing speccing a world where multiple different objects get minted and then we override the definition of ===, but I guess you were just talking about implementation strategies, and were not making a spec proposal.

I believe the intent of the current etherpad is to describe constraints 
in more or less those terms (which most closely match how Blink 
implements this stuff right now), but in a way that can map to different 
implementation strategies.  Again, the choice of specification language 
was largely to placate the Blink implementors into maybe even 
considering implementing the resulting spec.

Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 16:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:26 UTC