Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-04 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
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

RE: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-04 Thread Travis Leithead
-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

Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-04 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
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

Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
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: