W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:05:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78g671hxYAUZak+yHSZkWdarGXLywwE+p+UeahrLsUy4nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2013 6:58 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> We have the same notion elsewhere though. E.g. a <input readonly>
>> cannot be modified by the user, but can be modified through script.
>
> In this case, the "only" still describes a meaningful restriction, where the
> restricted client is the user.

That is the same notion Robbert is using. The user cannot modify the
object, but the user agent can.


>> Attributes annotated in IDL with "readonly" have the same behavior.
>
> Could you provide a link to the relevant part of the webidl spec, and to an
> example of a webidl that makes use of this ambiguity? Thanks.

http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-read-only
http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#xmlhttprequest (see any readonly attribute
defined here)


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 16:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC