BTW, Adam - can you elaborate your specific concerns? On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Drew Wilson <atwil...@google.com> wrote:
> Not sure. There's language in the WebIDL spec around prototype objects of > interface objects, but I'm not sure how window.Worker.prototype is intended > to relate to > new Worker().prototype (if at all), based on my 10 minutes of scanning specs. > -atw > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> 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
