- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:05:35 +0100
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: > On Oct 14, 2013 6:58 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> We have the same notion elsewhere though. E.g. a <input readonly> >> cannot be modified by the user, but can be modified through script. > > In this case, the "only" still describes a meaningful restriction, where the > restricted client is the user. That is the same notion Robbert is using. The user cannot modify the object, but the user agent can. >> Attributes annotated in IDL with "readonly" have the same behavior. > > Could you provide a link to the relevant part of the webidl spec, and to an > example of a webidl that makes use of this ambiguity? Thanks. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-read-only http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#xmlhttprequest (see any readonly attribute defined here) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 16:06:02 UTC