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
