- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:49:16 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is this necessary? What prevents us from simply defining that DOM >> objects have all properties observable, even the getter-like ones? > > Would be bad for properties such as innerHTML. Bah, you're right, okay. Well, still, reversing the question - are enough properties observable that it would be better to have an [Unobservable] extended attribute for them, and assume that anything else is observable? Would really cut down on the IDL spam. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 15:50:06 UTC