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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT