- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:55:30 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12/13/12 1:32 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>>
>> The invariants say that you cannot claim to be non-configurable and
>> then have observable changes that should have been possible. The
>> invariants purposely allow the opposite "violation": a property can
>> claim to be configurable but still refuse to be configured.
>
>
> Interesting. That would require some extra magic to keep track of
> properties that are "really" non-configurable (in terms of behavior)... and
> would also not work for the whole self-hosting thing.
Works perfectly for self hosting. The extra state is kept in the handler.
>
>
>> but I think Allen's suggestion below is better.
>
>
> Yeah, I have no problem with that one.
>
> -Boris
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 18:56:00 UTC