Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants

Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Simon Pieters:
>> Ok, good that it is defined.
>>
>> But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd  
>> expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be able to 
>> rely on constants being, um, constant. No?
> 
> It would make sense that way, yes. :)  Since more browsers allowed
> overwriting it, I specced it that way.  I have no idea if it is
> necessary for web compatibility.  If Moz and Opera people are OK with it
> being changed to being ReadOnly, I can do that.

Mozilla certainly is :)

/ Jonas