On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
At the upcoming TPAC, there is an opportunity for F2F coordination
between these two groups, and the time slot between 10 O'Clock and
Noon on Friday has been suggested for this.
To help prime the pump, here are four topics suggested by ECMA TC39
for discussion. On these and other topics, there is no need to wait
for the TPAC, discussion can begin now on the es-discuss mailing list.
- - -
The current WebIDL binding to ECMAScript is based on ES3... this
needs to more closely track to the evolution of ES, in particular it
needs to be updated to ES5 w.r.t the Meta Object Protocol. In the
process, we should discuss whether this work continues in the W3C,
is done as a joint effort with ECMA, or moves to ECMA entirely.
It seems like this is a Web IDL issue. I don't see any reason for Web
IDL to move to ECMA. It is a nominally language-independent formalism
that's being picked up by many W3C specs, and which happens to have
ECMAScript as one of the target languages. Much of it is defined by
Web compatibility constraints which would be outside the core
expertise of TC39. Probably the best thing to do is to provide
detailed technical review of Web IDL via the W3C process.
- - -
A concern specific to HTML5 uses WebIDL in a way that precludes
implementation of these objects in ECMAScript (i.e., they can only
be implemented as host objects), and an explicit goal of ECMA TC39
has been to reduce such. Ideally ECMA TC39 and the W3C HTML WG
would jointly develop guidance on developing web APIs, and the W3C
HTML WG would apply that guidance in HTML5.
Meanwhile, I would encourage members of ECMA TC 39 who are aware of
specific issues to open bug reports:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/
And I would encourage members of the HTML WG who are interested in
this topic to read up on the following emails (suggested by Brendan
Eich):
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003312.html
and the rest of that thread
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-September/003343.html
(not the transactional behavior, which is out -- just the
interaction with Array's custom [[Put]]).
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-May/009300.html
on an "ArrayLike interface" with references to DOM docs at the
bottom
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-June/002865.html
about a WebIDL float terminal value issue.
It seems like these are largely Web IDL issues (to the extent I can
identify issues in the threads at all).
- - -
There are larger (and less precise concerns at this time) about
execution scope (e.g., presumptions of locking behavior,
particularly by HTML5 features such as local storage). The two
groups need to work together to convert these concerns into
actionable suggestions for improvement.
There was extensive recent email discussion of local storage locking
on the <wha...@whatwg.org> mailing list. We could continue here if it
would be helpful. I'm not sure it's useful to discuss in person
without being up to speed on the email discussion. Here are some
relevant threads: <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/022542.html
> <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/022672.html
> <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/022993.html
> <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/022810.html
>.
I'm not sure what the other concerns about "execution scope" are -
seems hard to discuss fruitfully without more detail.
- - -
We should take steps to address the following "willful violation":
If the script's global object is a Window object, then in JavaScript,
the this keyword in the global scope must return the Window object's
WindowProxy object.
This is a willful violation of the JavaScript specification current
at
the time of writing (ECMAScript edition 3). The JavaScript
specification requires that the this keyword in the global scope
return the global object, but this is not compatible with the
security
design prevalent in implementations as specified herein. [ECMA262]
Wasn't ES5 fixed to address this? I know the feedback was passed along.
Regards,
Maciej
