- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:00:31 -0800
- To: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> I was reviewing browser Interop for the following scenario, and want to get your take on the matter (because some recent W3C test submissions are exercising these assumptions and IE is considering changing our implementation):
>
> var original = Node.ELEMENT_NODE;
> Node.ELEMENT_NODE = "ten";
> var check = Node.ELEMENT_NODE;
> if (original !== check)
> alert("const properties aren't constant");
> else
> alert("const properties can't be written");
>
>
> Tested__ Result__
> WebIDL not writable
> Opera not writable
> IE9 writable
> FF4 writable
> Chrome7 not writable
> Safari5 not writable
>
> Any objections if IE9 changes to not writable? I presume FF would also eventually change? Is there a web compatibility reason for not doing this?
I don't think there is a web compatibility constraint here. Safari has had the "not writable" behavior for a long time. I expect the other way does not have a problem either. So we should pick what is more sensible as the standard behavior. I think making constants constant is more sensible. I think we'd be open to changing WebKit's behavior if we come to consensus that the writable way is better.
Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:01:05 UTC