A practical exercise: fighting maskons
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 8 Nov 2009 16:03 On Nov 8, 3:50 pm, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Who said anything about "Global Equals Window?" > > the Books Of ECMA, Chapter 10, "Global Object": > "in the HTML document object model the window property of the global > object is the global object itself". How many times do we have to go over this? That sentence is not part of the ECMAScript specification. It doesn't have anything to do with the language. A clue is that it refers to an "HTML document object model" (and ECMAScript defines no host objects). Furthermore, there is no standard specification for browsers that says that window must refer to the Global Object.
From: VK on 8 Nov 2009 17:01 > > > Who said anything about "Global Equals Window?" > > > the Books Of ECMA, Chapter 10, "Global Object": > > "in the HTML document object model the window property of the global > > object is the global object itself". > > How many times do we have to go over this? That sentence is not part > of the ECMAScript specification. The definition of the Global Object is not a part of the Books? Thou shalt not blaspheme! :) 10.1.5 Global Object There is a unique global object (15.1), which is created before control enters any execution context. Initially the global object has the following properties: Built-in objects such as Math, String, Date, parseInt, etc. These have attributes { DontEnum }. Additional host defined properties. This may include a property whose value is the global object itself; for example, in the HTML document object model the window property of the global object is the global object itself. > It doesn't have anything to do with > the language. A clue is that it refers to an "HTML document object > model" (and ECMAScript defines no host objects). Furthermore, there > is no standard specification for browsers that says that window must > refer to the Global Object. It just because no one touched it for years. W3C once tried to document Window but realized that there is nothing "revolutionary" to announce in here, just carefully document the existing usage - and that was totally against the whole nature of the "Old W3C". So they arrived to the Working Draft and then dropped it back in 2006: http://www.w3.org/TR/Window/ so moved on a free territory where they could have more fun, so we became "happy owners" of AbstractView and document.defaultView and that was the end of it. In the upcoming HTML5 (note the missing space) there will be more useful stuff: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#browsing-context http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#windowproxy
From: David Mark on 8 Nov 2009 17:14 On Nov 8, 5:01 pm, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Who said anything about "Global Equals Window?" > > > > the Books Of ECMA, Chapter 10, "Global Object": > > > "in the HTML document object model the window property of the global > > > object is the global object itself". > > > How many times do we have to go over this? That sentence is not part > > of the ECMAScript specification. > > The definition of the Global Object is not a part of the Books? Thou > shalt not blaspheme! :) Who said that? > > 10.1.5 Global Object > There is a unique global object (15.1), which is created before > control enters any execution context. > Initially the global object has the following properties: > Built-in objects such as Math, String, Date, parseInt, etc. These > have attributes { DontEnum }. > Additional host defined properties. This may include a property > whose value is the global object > itself; for example, in the HTML document object model the window > property of the global object is > the global object itself. That's called an aside (and an inaccurate one too). It has nothing to do with the definition of the Global Object.
From: RobG on 8 Nov 2009 20:35 On Nov 9, 8:01 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > VK wrote: > > > David Mark wrote: > > > > Who said anything about "Global Equals Window?" > > > > the Books Of ECMA, Chapter 10, "Global Object": > > > "in the HTML document object model the window property of the global > > > object is the global object itself". > > > How many times do we have to go over this? That sentence is not part > > of the ECMAScript specification. > > The definition of the Global Object is not a part of the Books? Yes, it is but that is not the point. You inferred that ECMA-262 defines the window and global objects as being the same thing. It was pointed out to you (yet again) that that part of ECMA-262 is an *example* of how it might be implemented. It is not a normative part of the specification. [...] > > It doesn't have anything to do with > > the language. A clue is that it refers to an "HTML document object > > model" (and ECMAScript defines no host objects). Furthermore, there > > is no standard specification for browsers that says that window must > > refer to the Global Object. > > It just because no one touched it for years. So you admit that ECMA-262 does not specify behaviour for host objects? I guess that's a step forward. > W3C once tried to > document Window but realized that there is nothing "revolutionary" to > announce in here, just carefully document the existing usage - and > that was totally against the whole nature of the "Old W3C". So they > arrived to the Working Draft and then dropped it back in 2006: > http://www.w3.org/TR/Window/ Your arguments are contradictory and illogical. Initially you argued that ECMA-262 to defines the global and window object relationship, then you head off on a red herring regarding the W3C specification of the window object. Next you invent a reason for why they "dropped" it (all without any reference as to how that is related to your statement that ECMA-262 defines the window and global objects as being the same object). Not that long after the Window Object working draft was released, the first working draft of the HTML 5 specification (which includes the details of the Window Object working draft) was released. A more rational explanation is that the W3C realised that HTML 5 would make a separate Window Object specification redundant and so included the details of the Window Object working draft in the HTML 5 working draft. > so moved on a free territory where they could have more fun, so we > became "happy owners" of AbstractView and document.defaultView and > that was the end of it. No, it wasn't the end of their efforts to specify the window object at all and you know it, as you show below. But you continue with your fantastic stories anyway. > In the upcoming HTML5 (note the missing space) The "missing space" has no importance. I suspect it is just a trend as W3C references to most recent specifications drop the space between the letters and number, such as HTML4, XHTML1, and so on, but the titles of the actual specifications do not. The working draft is still titled "HTML 5" (with a space). > there will be more > useful stuff: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#browsing-context > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/browsers.html#windowproxy There's the proof that the W3C didn't "drop" their efforts to sepcify a window object at all, but are continuing their efforts in HTML 5. And you posted the evidence, despite your claim that they'd "dropped it" for some fantastic reason. Current work (as at 2009-11-03) regarding the relationship between the host window object and script environment global object is reflected here: "A relationship with the script's global object" <URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#script%27s-global-object > -- Rob
From: David Mark on 9 Nov 2009 00:54
On Nov 8, 2:33 pm, Luuk <l...(a)invalid.lan> wrote: > David Mark schreef: > > > On Nov 8, 5:22 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> P.P.S. Back in 2007 some "regulars" suggested that red and other pills > >> shows my preoccupation with drugs... For the possible sorry beings who > >> did not seen the "Matrix" movie yet: "red pill" refers to the pill Neo > >> had to take to leave the virtual world for the real one. > > > We are through the looking glass now. > > I surely do have to see that movie again..... > But I don't want to go among mad people. |