- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:05:20 -0400
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 9/25/12 9:48 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Boris Zbarsky: >> I guess the question is whether we're more likely to need [Unforgeable] >> on some other entire interface or whether were more likely to need >> [Unforgeable] on a single member that's not a readonly attribute. Of >> course we might never need either one... > > I'm inclined to simplify now (by moving [Unforgeable] to the interface) > and worry about it later if we need to. I guess from my point of view, extending the existing member [Unforgeable] to a wider class of members without changing anything else about it seems simpler than having two separate meanings to [Unforgeable] depending on what it's decorating... But maybe we're thinking about simplicity in different contexts? (Note we'll still need single-readonly-attribute [Unforgeable] for several properties on Window and Document, no matter what we do with Location.) -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 02:05:51 UTC