- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:50:51 -0500
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- CC: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 12/13/12 1:32 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > The invariants say that you cannot claim to be non-configurable and > then have observable changes that should have been possible. The > invariants purposely allow the opposite "violation": a property can > claim to be configurable but still refuse to be configured. Interesting. That would require some extra magic to keep track of properties that are "really" non-configurable (in terms of behavior)... and would also not work for the whole self-hosting thing. > but I think Allen's suggestion below is better. Yeah, I have no problem with that one. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 18:51:25 UTC