W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

RE: [selectors-api] What DOM feature "Selectors API" belongs to?

From: Kartikaya Gupta <kagupta@rim.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:06:03 -0500
Message-ID: <24BE9C481C439C48831EB9E52639B9B60A8D4841@XCH42YKF.rim.net>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Sergey Ilinsky" <castonet@yahoo.co.uk>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, <public-webapi@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> > 
> > If a user-agent returns "true" from hasFeature() without actually 
> > providing a conforming implementation of the feature, then that's a 
> > bug in the user-agent, no?
>
> Sure. So's the fact that it doesn't have a conforming implementation
in 
> the first place. Bugs are common.


That's only a bug if they /claim/ to have a conforming implementation.
My point (which is what I think Sergey was trying to say) is that the
Selectors API specification can't arbitrarily reserve the
"querySelector" method name and declare that any DOM implementation that
has such a method implements the spec. That sets a very dangerous
precedent where other specifications could reserve other method names
and greatly reduce the freedom for user-agents to provide
vendor-specific/proprietary DOM extensions. The Selectors API *can*
however reserve a feature string, because that's the entire point of the
feature strings in the first place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 19:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 February 2008 19:06:18 GMT