W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:48:29 -0400
Message-ID: <51D2235D.3080806@mit.edu>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 7/1/13 8:29 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> The spec does allow
>
>    interface A : B {};
>    interface B {
>      [Unforgeable] readonly attribute long c;
>    };

Right; it didn't at the point when the mail you're responding to was sent.

I agree that there is no difference between this case and the case when 
"c" is on a consequential interface of B.  I just want the spec to treat 
them identically.  Which at this point, I think it does (but did not 
when the mail you're responding to was sent).

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 00:49:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC