W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] What does it mean to have an unavailable API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:34:32 +0200
To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uu8xzuqs64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:38:14 +0200, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/09 11:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:34:19 +0200, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com>   
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, that was the design. If requestFeature() is introduced,<feature>
>>> is basically useless.
>>
>> Now I'm confused.
>
> hehe, join the club:)
>
> But seriously, requestFeature() is some BONDI thing so we should not be  
> discussing it here. Web Apps does not specify this anywhere: It has no  
> bearing on the work Web Apps is doing and should not be discussed in the  
> context of Widgets or within this working group. It may, however, become  
> a topic of discussion for DAP in the future; but, again, it has  
> absolutely nothing to do with W3C widgets.

You said it might influence whether or not <feature> stays in the specification so it seems it does have something to do with W3C widgets. And if that is indeed the effect of requestFeature(), removing <feature> seems like the best course of action.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 07:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT