- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:34:22 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22646 --- Comment #19 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> --- I guess not? But shouldn't it be non-conforming for me to have an attribute that returns an interface type that isn't exposed? The dictionary is fine because the interface isn't exposed so you can't possibly set the dictionary to a value that uses the interface. But the attribute in theory could be used by a user agent in a way that returns that interface even in a worker, despite the interface not being exposed... I dunno, it just seemed like something that should be done for completeness. How about this, is this ok?: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 20:34:24 UTC