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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:56:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78giU9WyHDGqdevYtJi=PdBX==dTawSKtPvy+yH4LXCEXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bobby Holley <bholley@mozilla.com> wrote:
> In general, I'm happy to answer any "why did we did this instead of this"
> questions. I would, however, caution that any attempts to significantly
> re-engineer what we have would be incredibly costly.

My main problem is that the Etherpad doesn't list all the invariants.
E.g., that same-origin Location objects still need security checks was
not listed. And one of Adam's concerns was not wanting to deal with
non-ES5-stuff, whereas this depends heavily on proxies. So if we're
going to have proxies anyway, do we really need to mint one
per-origin? (It does seem like we need multiple underlying objects to
deal with "expandos" properly.) And does minting a new object
per-origin correctly deal with navigation, a case that is also not

I looked at the tests too and had some questions.

talks about frameURI but that is never used. What is its function?

overrides window.frames. I guess that's just an example of overriding
a property that's also whitelisted? Should that become a more
expansive test also testing the other whitelisted properties?

Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 17:56:56 UTC

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