On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov
<a...@webkit.org> wrote:
18.09.2009, в 12:24, Jeremy Orlow написал(а):
I'm not sure if we've hit any compatibility issues with this yet,
but it seems quite plausible that someone would compare
window.localStorage (or sessionStorage or database) to undefined
and, since it's null (vs. undefined), their script would assume it's
available.
Note that they can also do '"localStorage" in window', which we
can't easily prevent from returning true.
That's true. And unfortunate.
What would be involved in making it not return true?
It would be pretty complicated to do that based on a runtime setting.
You would need a custom getter for any object that has properties
which may appear or disappear based on settings. This is probably too
complicated to be worth it. Or at least, if we added that level of
code complexity I would begin to doubt the merits of supporting
runtime enabling of Web platform features.
Which is a shame, because if ("localStorage" in window) is a generally
a better way to feature test than if (window.localStorage). The latter
idiom is problematic for attributes where a possible valid value is
something that evaluates to false, or where computing the value can be
expensive. For example, if (document.body.outerHTML) would be an awful
way to test whether outerHTML is available.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
