This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 21739 - [Custom]: Clarify the semantics of registering an element whose prototype has "constructor" set
Summary: [Custom]: Clarify the semantics of registering an element whose prototype has...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HISTORICAL - Component Model (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dimitri Glazkov
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 18720
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2013-04-18 04:56 UTC by Dominic Cooney
Modified: 2013-04-24 20:36 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Dominic Cooney 2013-04-18 04:56:37 UTC 
Section 4 step 3 says "Let CONSTRUCTOR be the interface object whose interface prototype object is PROTOTYPE". Per the Web IDL spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#interface-prototype-object>

"If the [NoInterfaceObject] extended attribute was not specified on the interface, then the interface prototype object must also have a property named “constructor” with attributes { [[Writable]]: true, [[Enumerable]]: false, [[Configurable]]: true } whose value is a reference to the interface object for the interface."

What should an implementation do if the prototype has a "constructor" property that is not configurable?
Comment 1 Dimitri Glazkov 2013-04-24 20:36:11 UTC 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/3b431276813d