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: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:54:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2E5B84.20801@opera.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>


On 6/9/09 11:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:32:49 +0200, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com>  wrote:
>> Like I said, as far as WebApps is concerned requestFeature() does not
>> exists. What I meant was the requestFeature() undermines<feature>
>> without addressing the security issues.
>
> I'm getting more and more confused. You claim you do not understand requestFeature(). You claim requestFeature() makes<feature>  useless. You claim requestFeature() is irrelevant with respect to<feature>. And now you claim requestFeature() is less secure than<feature>.
>
> I do not get at all the feeling that this feature is ready for standardization.

How about instead of taking little fragments of conversations out of 
context you actually go and read the two specs? I don't see how you can 
assess the how ready for standardization anything is based on the 
conversation we have been having here. That's just trolling. Until you 
go and read both specs and make comments against the specs, I'm not 
continuing this discussion.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 12:55:12 GMT

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