W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [ElementTraversal]: Feature string for DOMImplementation.hasFeature(feature, version)?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:01:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4ADA4CAE.4090906@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Hi, Anne-

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 10/17/09 2:33 AM):
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:46:56 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> Sorry for the tardy response.
>>
>> This was an unfortunate oversight. I've now added this to the proposed
>> errata [1]. Please let me know if this suits your needs.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222-errata#S1
>
> Didn't we explicit decide against this because you could easily feature
> test it?

I don't recall that, and can't find any reference to it in the 
archives... do you have a link?  It's possible it was discussed in some 
telcon of F2F that I don't recall, but was not minuted.

In any case, I don't believe that adding a feature string is harmful or 
introduces significant implementation burden.  If it is reported 
accurately, it is useful, and in non-browser environments, where there 
may be different DOM implementations available, it is necessary for the 
DOMImplementationRegistry (as Michael mentioned).

I've heard people complain about hasFeature() and feature strings 
before, on the grounds that implementations may dishonestly report false 
support, but I don't know of any instance of that happening... it would 
be interesting if you do know of such a case.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Saturday, 17 October 2009 23:01:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT