Re: hasFeature revisited

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:11:56 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 4/15/13 11:30 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
>> How many sites are we talking about here?
>
> Any site using SoftXMLLib.js (possibly old versions of?) or old versions  
> of zXml.
>
> How many that is, unclear.  We've had reports about two of them in the  
> <2 months since we shipped this in a final release.

OK.

http://www.softxml.com/softxmllib/SoftXMLLib.js

It still has the "LS" check.

I've submitted feedback to the SoftXMLLib project using the form in  
http://www.softxml.com/softxmllib/softxmllib.htm

[[
In http://www.softxml.com/softxmllib/SoftXMLLib.js

Please remove the use of document.implementation.hasFeature('LS', '3.0')  
and document.implementation.createLSParser(1,null). It is not necessary  
anymore and is causing problems for browsers and may cause the  
specification for hasFeature to special-case 'LS' if there are many sites  
using SoftXMLLib.js.

Also see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=848081
http://www.w3.org/mid/516C26CC.8050603@mit.edu

Feel free to comment on the Mozilla bug or post to www-dom@w3.org if you  
have comments or questions about this.

Thanks
]]

I don't object to special-casing "LS" in the spec if you end up  
implementing that in Gecko.

>> From what I can tell, the site
>> referenced in the bug report has been fixed.
>
> Er... which one?  The bug was filed by the developer of some sort of web  
> application (without a link), and the site mentioned in comment 8 of the  
> bug is certainly not fixed.

Oh, I probably meant the link-less web application. I didn't notice the  
site in comment 8.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 17:08:22 UTC