On 7/18/10, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The more important issue is our intent regarding the definitions of >>> "host" and "native" objects. > > First regarding, alert in IE. Historically it is what it is and nobody > should make any assumptions concerning the future based upon previous > versions of IE or what they have observed so for in IE9 preview builds. I
I hope the same can be said for the bug related to catch clauses and scope in IE9. > don't think there is any disagreement that the [[class]] of alert should be > 'Function'. However, if you want to pin that down in a standard then WebIDL > is probably the place you need to do it. > What is the basis for making assertions of what the [[Class]] for any host object should be? [...] > So essentially, they are two kinds of host objects: native host objects and > non-native host objects. The spec. doesn't explicitly talk about native > host objects because their hostness is semantically irrelevant if they are > also native. While that is true for the purposes of the specification, it is not necessarily true for script authors. For any script wanting to define `isHostObject`, that script is going to be in a predicament. Hence, when the spec. talks about "host objects" in most cases > it is really talking about non-native host objects in order to impose > specific sematic constraints upon them. I believe that in most cases in the > ES5 spec, "host object" should be read as meaning "non-native host object". > Again, if the specification definition of host object is correct -- and you have confirmed that it is -- then there are two types of host objects, native, and non-native. And in that case, the clause that mentions "[[Class]]" property must change as I initially suggested. [snip remainder] Garrett _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
