W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Fwd: DOM event detection

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:26:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTtDt-ELJaoJpTpgrrzu5Ev_Th5ZHD0iZoCLhiN3Xc2ZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:50 AM, 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<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-features>


What ended up happening here? I'd like to second Anne's vote to remove the
bits of DOM Events that extend hasFeature.

FYI, this came up in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76214.
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 20:27:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:09 GMT