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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/6/23 Drew Wilson <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
