Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor? from Cameron McCormack on 2013-07-02 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:56:59 +1000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <51D2255B.6090303@mcc.id.au>

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Right; it didn't at the point when the mail you're responding to was sent.

Ah. ;)

> 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).

OK, thanks.  More [Unforgeable] changes (to handle it on interfaces) 
coming soon.

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 01:00:33 UTC