- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 04:31:52 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22320 --- Comment #10 from Mark S. Miller <erights@gmail.com> --- Backwards compat with what? getOwnPropertyNames didn't even exist prior to ES5. And your own analysis says that browsers differ on this odd case anyway. Just because some browsers shipped a bug, let's not immediately turn around and legislate that bug as a standard before the cement has dried, especially when this bug contradicts an existing standard. Are the objects in question *necessarily* non-extensible? In other words, must they refuse Object.freeze, .seal, and .preventExtensions? After they are made non-extensible, if they claim (via getOwnPropertyNames) not to have an own property, they must not after (e.g., by getOwnPropertyDescriptor) claim to have that property, or they would violate the non-extensibility contract. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 04:31:53 UTC