Re: [webidl] Specify [LegacyUnenumerableNamedProperties] (fixes #82) (#91)

> Say the bindings in Gecko got updated to no longer call this function and instead just use the [LegacyUnenumerableNamedProperties] bit from IDL. Now someone comes along and implements a currently-specced interface that does the prose thing. They copy the IDL from the spec, implement this "is this name enumerable?" function to return false for all names, and think they're OK. But of course they're not. Of course arguably they should have tests that would catch the problem, but I would really rather not rely on that. Getting the other specs update here shouldn't be terribly complicated; we should just do it.

How is that different from missing the prose stating that the properties should be unenumerable?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/91#issuecomment-184704055