On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote: >> Or, it's a spec fiction to explain and codify the Web-visible effects >> of serialization and deserialization without specifying a >> serialization format. > > As such, it seem like this may be a poor specification approach.
Perhaps. Certainly the current spec language isn't ideal. This algorithm is in the "Here's a bunch of random stuff" section of the HTML5 standard. Perhaps the ES spec is a better place for it. I'm not sure. On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >2011/7/15 Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> >> The structured cloning algorithm should be redefined in terms of the >> ES object protocol. This seems necessary anyway, for precision. > > Except that you don't want to do that for host objects. I only meant to say that the structured cloning algorithm should be specified in precise language, not that the meaning should be drastically changed. After all this is a deployed standard, right? If this it were to be done in the style of the ES standard, it would mean offering an extension point, such as a [[Clone]] internal method, which cloneable host objects such as File could implement. (I say [[Clone]], but there are other possibilities.) -j _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
