Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants

On Jun 13, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> 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.

Safari has always had these constants ReadOnly and we have not had any  
compatibility issues reported as a result, so far as I know.

If it is not a compatibility issue, I think it makes more sense for  
constants to be constant.


Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 02:27:35 UTC