On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: > >> >> Document interface is an interface. An interface does not have defined >> implementation; it is merely a contract. "IDL" is for "Interface >> Definition". >> >> The fact that some browsers expose Document as a global property does >> not need standardization. It would not be bad to have DOM readonly >> properties implemented with [[DontDelete]], [[ReadOnly]]. That could >> be one line in WebIDL, e.g. >> >> "DOM readonly properties have [[DontDelete]] and [[ReadOnly]]." >> >> But it seems fairly obvious that this would have to be so, so it >> wouldn't seem critical to include that. > > All of the top four browser vendors would like to have these kinds of > details clearly specified and to converge on interoperable behavior. I am > not aware of any vendor that specifically wishes to diverge from > interoperable behavior. As such, I hope the editor politely declines your > requests to leave such things unspecified.
what 'such things'? > > In general, leaving things unspecified does not prevent Web content from > relying on them, People will do all sorts of things won't they? > Regards, > Maciej > >
