W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Fwd: DOM event detection

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:37:21 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=rzWQUPD=-C_vSbOYhTabMHGh7s_jPt-1UA8Y-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>
On 3/7/11, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:13:41 +0100, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>> Garrett Smith:
>>> That feature [hasFeature()] cannot be reliably used for the web.
>>
>> The fact that it isn't reliable today isn't proof that it is a bad API
>> (hence, Doug's "reductio ad absurdum" comment).
>
> I thought we long ago reached the conclusion that hasFeature() is a bad
> API and should not be used. DOM Core warns against using it and does not
> allow other specifications to introduce new non-legacy DOM features.
> Decoupling feature support from features is not something that has worked
> well to date.
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-features
>
"Warning! Authors are strongly discouraged from using DOM features, as
they are notoriously unreliable and imprecise. Authors are encouraged
to rely on explicit feature testing or graceful degradation."

I like it!

DOMImplementation hasFeature method is designed in such a way that
allows features without feature strings to exist.
-- 
Garrett
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:37:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:07 GMT