- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:26:55 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 02:27:35 UTC