Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor? from Cameron McCormack on 2013-07-02 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:29:51 +1000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <51D21EFF.8010200@mcc.id.au>

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Consider this IDL:
>
> interface A : B {};
> interface B {};
> interface C {
> [Unforgeable] readonly attribute long c;
> };
> B implements C;
>
> This is currently allowed by the spec. I don't believe it should be
> allowed, just as it would not be allowed if the unforgeable attribute
> were on B.

The spec does allow

   interface A : B {};
   interface B {
     [Unforgeable] readonly attribute long c;
   };

it just requires that A not define anything with the name "c" too.  So I 
think it is OK to allow your example above.

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 00:33:26 UTC