- From: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:33:59 -0700
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: David Bruant <david.bruant@labri.fr>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 18:34:43 UTC
- Infinity I'm with Travis and Alex here. Configurability is part of JavaScript and the web. If you don't want this I suggest using a static language like GWT/Java or use Caja or AdSafe (or some other linter like tool). erik On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 19:44, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > I hate this idea. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Bruant <david.bruant@labri.fr> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In the current form of WebIDL, if i run the following code (in a > > WebIDL-compliant environment): > > ----- > > var o = Event.prototype; > > delete o.currentTarget; // works with any other attributes > > ----- > > Then, all events afterward will not have a currentTarget property (since > > it's gone from the interface). > > In the DOM event spec, "currentTarget" is defined as an attribute on the > > Event.prototype object. This property must be a configurable (since not > > [[Unforgeable]]). Consequently, any script can remove it and events will > > no longer have a currentTarget property which is not what anyone want. > > > > Consequently, I would suggest to consider all attributes to be > > non-configurable regardless of [[Unforgeab(le)]]-ility. > > > > David > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 18:34:43 UTC