- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:55:33 +1000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
Simon Pieters: > Ok, good that it is defined. > > But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd > expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be able to > rely on constants being, um, constant. No? It would make sense that way, yes. :) Since more browsers allowed overwriting it, I specced it that way. I have no idea if it is necessary for web compatibility. If Moz and Opera people are OK with it being changed to being ReadOnly, I can do that. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 01:56:18 UTC