I think that adding backtrace information is overkill for the spec.
Collecting this information should be left to a debugging environment.
What I would suggest is something along the following lines. It should
be made clear that these properties must be present, but that the actual
value of these
On 09/03/2008, Michael Daumling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would suggest is something along the following lines. It should
be made clear that these properties must be present, but that the actual
value of these properties are implementation dependent. This creates a
reliable framework
On 3/9/08, Michael Daumling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that adding backtrace information is overkill for the spec.
Collecting this information should be left to a debugging environment.
What I would suggest is something along the following lines. It should
be made clear that these
I agree that file and line information is not really sensitive
information. I believe, however, that since the implementation can
choose to provide this information to the Error constructor, the
implementation has full control about whether to provide that
information or not. We (the language
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Michael Daumling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that file and line information is not really sensitive
information.
I disagree: we have existing bugs in Mozilla about the security impact
of exposing filename information to unprivileged callers. It's likely
On Mar 9, 2008, at 7:45 AM, liorean wrote:
How about javascript: urls; javascript in data: urls; javascript from
eval, setTimeout with string, setInterval with string, Function
constructor; javascript written directly into the page using DOM;
javascript written directly into the page using
On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Michael Daumling wrote:
line
The initial value of the line prototype property is the line number of
the executing code that created the Error instance. This is an integer
value, starting with the number 1.
On 09/03/2008, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael O'Brien-4 wrote:
We will be using our ES4 implementation server side. Mainly for
embedded uses, but it could apply more broadly.
We have a server side page technology like ASP -- called ESP.
...
we have had to add quite a bit of extra
library code suitable for server side
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
But doesn't DontEnum still have to be there for ES3 objects? How else
would you prevent the enumeration of ES3 builtin methods, e.g.
Object.prototype.toString()? Or is there some more open namespace
magic
that I'm
