- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:05:05 -0400
- To: Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi All, Please use public-script-coord for Web IDL. -Thanks, AB -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive? Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:36:00 +0200 From: ext Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com> To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Sam Weinig (weinig@apple.com)" <weinig@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org> Sure. Not only does ES5's configurable: false property prevent deletion, but it also prevents changing a property from a field to an accessor and vice-versa, as well as changing the getter/setters of the property. So, the following wouldn't work if the "appendChild" property was configurable:false: Object.defineProperty(Node.prototype, "appendChild", { get: function() { /* custom getter replacement */ }, set: function(x) { /* custom setter replacement */ } }); ... which is the ES5 way of doing: Node.prototype.__defineGetter__("appendChild", function() { /* custom getter replacement */ }); Node.prototype.__defineSetter__("appendChild", function(x) { /* custom setter replacement */ }); So, configurable: false prevents users from replacing built-in properties with getter/setters. I think this is too restrictive, especially forward-looking considering how much the DOM is changing and evolving. -----Original Message----- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Cameron McCormack; Sam Weinig (weinig@apple.com); public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive? On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead<travil@microsoft.com> wrote: > Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current > {DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) > [2]. When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to > "configurable: false", which completely destroyed the ability to set > accessors on the interface objects as well as operations (and in our > case, DOM accessors). Because of this, we actually don't mark our > interface objects OR operations/attributes as configurable: false, > rather configurable: true.* > > If this seems reasonable, I'd like to see the spec updated. Sorry, I'm not very updated on the differences between the ES3 and ES5 worlds. Why does "configurable: false" destroyed the ability to set accessors? Can you give an example of a piece of script that doesn't work but which you'd like to work, and what you'd like it to do? / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:05:49 UTC