2009/6/23 Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com>: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> > I am not even sure all of these should have the same behavior, >> > however. For instance, as I read the Web Workers spec, the lexical global >> > object may be correct thing to use for the Worker constructor. >> >> I looked at the spec briefly. What leads you to think that? It's >> probably a bug in the spec. > > Section 4.5 of the web workers spec reads: >> >> Given a script's global scope o when creating or obtaining a worker, the >> list of relevant Document objects to add depends on the type of o. If o is a >> WorkerGlobalScope object (i.e. if we are creating a nested worker), then the >> relevant Documents are the Documents that are in o's own list of the >> worker's Documents. Otherwise, o is a Window object, and the relevant >> Document is just the Document that is the active document of the Window >> object o. > > So it seems to imply that parent document for a worker is derived from the > currently executing script's global scope. I'll ping IanH about this - it may > not be what he intended.
There's another question, which is where does the prototype chain of the JS object you get out of the worker constructor point? It might not have anything to do with this Document calculation. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
