- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:15:12 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:40:44 +0200, Lachlan Hunt > <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: >> Would it be acceptable if I defined one, but made it optional for >> implementers to support? Or at least optional for ECMAScript >> implementations? That way an implementation can choose to support it >> if feature detection is necessary for the language and there is no >> other way to do it. > > What's the point of making the feature string optional, exactly? To avoid forcing implementers to bother implementing such a useless feature, and potentially lying about their support. Basically, this should only be for languages other than ECMAScript that don't have other detection mechanisms available, and where the programmer isn't always in control of which DOM implementation is in use where the program is run. (If the programmer is in control of that, then feature detection is useless since they can just check the documentation) -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 15:15:54 UTC