W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [widgets] <option>s on <feature>s

From: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:29:44 +0100
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "public-webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uq0d3uzgbyn2jm@galactica>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:22:54 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> I see a limited use case for the sort of example you propose, but I'm  
> nevertheless going to push back against it. One reason is that it can  
> already be described with features, to witness:
> <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/read"/>

Getting in to the edge cases here: What if I have an application where falling back to read access is acceptable, if write fails (In other words, failure to adhere to some option is not fatal)?

Arve Bersvendsen

Developer, Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 22:30:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:33 UTC