- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:04:17 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> > On 2006/05/10, at 12:31 PM, Mihai Sucan wrote: >> >> When developers have to have their sites compatible with more and more >> user agents (on various devices)... such features are just an added >> layer of headaches for developers who use them. > > What would you recommend as an alternative? That authors write scripts without relying on such behaviour at all. This is what scripters have done for a long time. There are further problems with your example, it's no use if the browser passes all HTTP caching and redirect tests, given that an upstream proxy may or may not be involved which could change behaviour, so a UA that passes the tests cannot be assumed to fully work. Equally what is an author going to do if the cache is not supported correctly? They'll implement some other mechanism, in that situation they might aswell just do that, so the checks are simply redundant. Equally what does "pass all the tests" mean once new tests are added? So there must be individual feature strings for different versions of test suites, and a UA will not be able to claim conformance to any version of the test suite later than the published date of the UA even if they do actually pass them. hasFeature has so far been an abject failure, it's simply not used, I see no reason to waste time resurrecting something that so far has no proven use. Could you provide some actual use cases for such broken down feature strings, I can't see any. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:04:44 UTC