W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:21:47 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinozknGVwRq+c8U-egabe85H=pRcixAOsv1yQTe@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Sam Weinig (weinig@apple.com)" <weinig@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current {DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2]. When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to "configurable: false", which completely destroyed the ability to set accessors on the interface objects as well as operations (and in our case, DOM accessors). Because of this, we actually don't mark our interface objects OR operations/attributes as configurable: false, rather configurable: true.*
>
> If this seems reasonable, I'd like to see the spec updated.

Sorry, I'm not very updated on the differences between the ES3 and ES5
worlds. Why does "configurable: false" destroyed the ability to set
accessors? Can you give an example of a piece of script that doesn't
work but which you'd like to work, and what you'd like it to do?

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 00:22:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT