907548 - URL.prototype is not undefined

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

Description

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Per spec it should be.  This is a regression from bug 813253.

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Attachment: URL.prototype should be undefined, since we don't implement the URL API.

Comment 2

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

Can we fix the Bindings.conf comments around 'concrete' too please?

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Attachment: URL.prototype should be undefined, since we don't implement the URL API.

With the comment fixes bent asked for

Comment 4

[(no longer active)]

Andrea, you should probably revert this Bindings.conf entry when you land your fix to bug 887364.

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Well, presumably any test for bug 887364 would fail without said reversion, so it should be ok.  ;)

Comment 6

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/52b51dc7c83e

Comment 7

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Comment on attachment 793545 [details] [diff] [review]
URL.prototype should be undefined, since we don't implement the URL API.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Bug 813253
User impact if declined: Some websites might break due to expecting URL API to be
   implemented, when it isn't.
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Passes regression tests.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Pretty small: I doubt
   anyone would expect the prototype to be there in a browser not implementing
   URL API, especially since the spec explicitly forbids it.  The other option is
   to just let this ride the trains for now.
String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: None.

Comment 8

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/52b51dc7c83e

Comment 9

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #7)
> Comment on attachment 793545 [details] [diff] [review]
> URL.prototype should be undefined, since we don't implement the URL API.
> 
> [Approval Request Comment]
> Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Bug 813253
> User impact if declined: Some websites might break due to expecting URL API
> to be
>    implemented, when it isn't.
> Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Passes regression tests.
> Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Pretty small: I doubt
>    anyone would expect the prototype to be there in a browser not
> implementing
>    URL API, especially since the spec explicitly forbids it.  The other
> option is
>    to just let this ride the trains for now.
> String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: None.

 Do we know of any websites that are already impacted ?

Comment 10

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

We do not, no.

Comment 11

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

In that case, approving this for aurora only at this time.If for some reason we thinkwe should ship this in Fx24 given its ESR as well I am happy to approve for beta as well given the low risk.Feel free to renominate for beta.

Comment 12

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/e743faa98501