On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead 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
-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead tra...@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
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead tra...@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
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead tra...@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: