Re: [WebIDL] troublesome names, property attributes and related issues from Cameron McCormack on 2011-09-09 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2011)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:58:16 +1000
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <4E698ED8.9060304@mcc.id.au>

Given my earlier comments, I am leaving the spec unchanged for the 
moment regarding these unresolved issues -- enumerability of properties, 
moving towards constants not existing on prototypes.

If implementors indicate they are happy with changing the enumerability 
and that this would not break content, I will make this change.

My feeling is that the break in consistency for the current interfaces 
with constants and new ones is not worth it, wrt whether they should 
exist on prototypes.

Allen, can you indicate whether the above resolutions plus those earlier 
in the thread around [NoInterfaceObject] and disallowing troublesome 
property names are acceptable.

Thanks,

Cameron

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 03:58:54 UTC