From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
> What was the outcome of the discussions about possibly having "interface
> console" and having all the methods be statics?
Another good question which we should probably resolve ASAP. It does indeed
change the
On 2/8/16 6:25 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
So I think the plan of record is: `attribute any console`, with prose describing how the
getter returns "the window's console object" which is initially set to a new
instance of Console, but the setter can change it to any value.
What was the
On 2/8/16 9:31 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
and Firefox used to do this but backed it out.
Just for the record, Firefox used to do it back before we had a Web IDL
implementation of console at all. At the time it was a giant
injected-into-the-page hack, and the particular way it was injected
From: Domenic Denicola
> So I think the plan of record is: `attribute any console`, with prose
> describing
> how the getter returns "the window's console object" which is initially set to
> a new instance of Console, but the setter can change it to any value. This
> means accessor descriptors
As you may know, we now have a standard for the console object:
http://console.spec.whatwg.org/
One of the first issues we encountered while investigating console behavior is
https://github.com/whatwg/console/issues/1, which is that browsers currently
allow setting `window.console` (and
The test harnesses used by the working group which I chair rely on being
able to replace window.console. I'd like to see it continue to be mutable.
Thanks.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> As you may know, we now have a standard for the console object: