W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:26:23 -0700
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <694F0596-DA87-410C-885F-5272188302E7@apple.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>

On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> 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)

Since implementing the feature string is trivial, I'd rather it be  
mandatory. I agree that feature strings are not a great mechanism, but  
optional features are a greater harm than feature strings.

Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 18:27:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC