Let's kill terms "native" and "host"

[Brendan Eich]

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> Can we get rid of the concept of "Foreign Object" entirely, and just 
>> treat all the objects we have in mind (e.g. DOM nodes) as "Built in 
>> proxy objects"?
>
> Possibly, but my gut says that is a step too far for this iteration of 
> the spec. If we could, then we could also get rid of all internal 
> redefinition of the internal methods and replace all chapter 15 
> objects specifications with Proxy based definitions.

Array is a hard case, but most of the clause 15 objects do not need to 
be proxies, IINM. Some need private-named (formerly "internal") 
properties, but that's a subclassing fix we want.

> It may be possible, but I'm worried that we don't yet understand 
> reflection upon proxies well enough yet to expose the built-ins in 
> that manner. It also it clear to me whether proxies are yet power 
> enough to accomplish everything that is currently done with "host 
> objects".
We should do a stress-test on implementations and other specs that claim 
to need more than what proxies now provide. I think we can ignore the 
legacy stuff in WebIDL -- it can still be outlaw. What we want is a 
smaller ECMA-262 that biases for the future.

/be