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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:48:29 -0400
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <51D2235D.3080806@mit.edu>

On 7/1/13 8:29 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> The spec does allow
>
>    interface A : B {};
>    interface B {
>      [Unforgeable] readonly attribute long c;
>    };

Right; it didn't at the point when the mail you're responding to was sent.

I agree that there is no difference between this case and the case when 
"c" is on a consequential interface of B.  I just want the spec to treat 
them identically.  Which at this point, I think it does (but did not 
when the mail you're responding to was sent).

-Boris

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 00:49:00 UTC