Summary: | Consider making the global scope pollution by names/ids quirks-only | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Jonas Sicking <jonas> |
Component: | WebCore JavaScript | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> |
Status: | UNCONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | annevk, ap, darin, fishd, ian, mjs |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified |
Description
Jonas Sicking
2012-03-22 14:51:35 PDT
Maciej, Darin, would you be OK with trying this out? I'm OK with experimenting with limiting this to quirksmode. I can easily believe that limiting this behavior would fix more content than it would break. No meaningful way to get concrete evidence one way or another though without just pushing the change to real users. I know Google apps have had a number of production releases that needed to be rolled back due to this behavior. For example, the Closure JavaScript compiler and CSS compiler would create shortened names that conflicted. These sorts of bugs are very hard to diagnose and very difficult to avoid. Seems extremely unlikely that this could be done without making many users unhappy. In what sense? Because you think this is a feature that they'd like, or because this would break existing content? Ojan has much more experience on the first point, but my perception is that the global scope polluter is nice when you're just prototyping stuff, but makes applications very bug-prone when you start getting bigger applications. As for breaking existing content. Like I said, Gecko has not had a global-scope-polluter in any released version and so far we've only had two bugs filed against us because of it. IE claims that they know of content that depend on it, but it sounded like it was in IE-specific code paths. I'm also not sure if they actually know of content of content, or if they are just concerned that things *might* break. |