On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Brendan Eich wrote:
If we must have split windows in all top browser implementations (so the
argument goes), then we must have them in a spec. If not ECMA-262, then
HTML5. If split windows, then what |this| binds to (outer or inner)
needs to be spec'ed. So here we are.
Ian Hickson wrote:
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which is used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers do:
var x = 1;
function f() { return x; }
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 1:20 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I don't understand. If the object you're calling Window is inaccessible
from ES code, and if the object you're calling WindowProxy forwards
On Feb 21, 2009, at 1:49 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which
is used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers
On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:13 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson's description of the two objects was:
# The global object is a Window object. This object is per-Document.
# The object returned by the window attribute on that global object
# is actually a WindowProxy object, which forwards
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 1:39 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of browser vendors have asked me to codify.
Majority, huh? Which vendors?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
MarkM's point is that *given that the object called Window is
inaccessible*, there's no way to observe that the object called Window
is at the top of the scope chain.
Granted, but there _is_ a way to observe that the object at the top of the
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of browser vendors have
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get different
results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the example code).
For HTML5,
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
I think it should matter. The vendors should be asked to give a reason
that makes technical sense. That this option could not be implemented
in a high-performance manner does not make sense -- which means that it
is quite possible that the
On Feb 19, 2009, at 1:39 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of browser vendors
On Feb 19, 2009, at 1:20 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I don't understand. If the object you're calling Window is
inaccessible
from ES code, and if the object you're calling WindowProxy forwards
everything to your Window, why
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Perhaps it would be useful to have a half day (or even full day) session
on this general topic at the March F2F. Since Ian is affiliated with an
ECMA member he could attend if he chooses and I might get an appropriate
IE platform
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Opera, Apple, and Mozilla. The HTML5 spec originally specced what IE
does,
namely throw an exception when running code whose global object
doesn't
match the current Window
On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
You misunderstood me a bit, but no matter. Now that I better
understand the constraints -- thanks! -- what I was trying to say is
irrelevant. What I mess. I am at a loss to find anything sensible to
recommend.
I think that's how most of
On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
You misunderstood me a bit, but no matter.
Sorry, I couldn't see how to interpret your proposal otherwise. Let me
know what I missed if you like.
Maciej's right, the object identities practically dictate split
windows. I suppose the
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Perhaps this would be a good initial W3C HTML WG/ECMA TC-39 joint work
item if we can expeditiously get past the bureaucratic hurdles. The
fact that there isn't an existing consensus behavior among the major
browsers would seem to present an
On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I'm happy to spec into HTML5 whatever the majority of implementations
eventually do (i.e. HTML5 will just track reality, whatever that
is), I
would hope the same applies to the ES specs. :-)
We do try to pave the cowpaths (without giving the
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which is used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers do:
var x = 1;
function f() { return x; }
var global = this;
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
For HTML5, this behaviour has been defined in more detail. The global
object is a Window object. This object is per-Document. The object
returned by the window attribute on that global object is actually a
WindowProxy object,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get different
results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the example code).
For HTML5, this behaviour has been defined in more detail. The global
object is a
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I don't understand. If the object you're calling Window is inaccessible
from ES code, and if the object you're calling WindowProxy forwards
everything to your Window, why not just relabel Window -
InternalWindow, WindowProxy - Window?
I don't
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get
different results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up the
example code).
For HTML5, this behaviour has
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get
different
results (2 and 1 respectively, if I didn't screw up
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The deeper problem here is that ES specs to date -- including the
draft ES3.1 spec -- have not yet admitted the existence of multiple
global objects. We
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Right now ES3 assumes that there is a single global object, which is
used
at the top of the scope chain and that is returned for this in the
global scope.
It is possible to show that this is now what some browsers do:
var x = 1;
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Here are some demos. 001 is a control test. If it says false, you have a
violation of ES, and are likely incompatible with legacy content. If it
says true, then test 002. If 002 says false, then ES is being violated
in some
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the behavior
that the majority of browser vendors have asked me to codify.
Majority, huh? Which vendors? How does the behavior they ask for correlate
with what their
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Indeed, I noted this earlier. The behavior HTML5 codifies is the
behavior that the majority of browser vendors have asked me to codify.
Majority, huh? Which vendors? How does the
On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:03 PM, ihab.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Garrett Smith
dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
That document is not completely readable (at least in Firefox).
I see the first heading: roduction. All subsequent headings
appear truncted.
Rats.
Ok, so
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Opera, Apple, and Mozilla. The HTML5 spec originally specced what IE does,
namely throw an exception when running code whose global object doesn't
match the current Window object, but Opera, Apple, and Mozilla rejected
this on
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy is the
object to treated as the ECMAScript global object? The consequence
would be that both f() and g() in your original
...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On
Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:17 PM
To: Mark Miller; Ian Hickson
Cc: es-discuss Steen
Subject: Re: The global object in browsers
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller
:* Re: The global object in browsers
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, if the other page's script calls f() and g(), it will get different
results
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy is the object to
treated as the ECMAScript global
On Feb 17, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Now that I think I understand current and how weak the legacy
constraints are, why not simply spec that your WindowProxy
You misunderstood me a bit, but no matter. Now that I better understand the
constraints -- thanks! -- what I was trying to say is irrelevant. What I
mess. I am at a loss to find anything sensible to recommend.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Feb 17,
39 matches
Mail list logo
