W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [Powerbox] Q's on the proposal

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:54:11 +0200
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1EA6AF94-150B-440C-9C80-7AD589176AE8@nokia.com>
To: "ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
On 24.2.2010, at 20.31, ext richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:

> 1. <input ...> does not degrade nicely in older UAs. (this was  
> raised on
> the conf. call but included for completion).
>
> If the <input type="file" ...> DAP extensions are not supported in  
> older
> browsers the degradation is to a file picker. This does not make sense
> for a number of APIs such as video, contacts, calendar, system info.
>
> In the current JS API proposals a web developer can check for  
> support of
> an API before invoking it via Javascript. The test for API support and
> the API itself are the same object which is a concious API design
> consideration.


Just an idea: if we were to introduce a unique attribute to PB on  
HTMLInputElement we could test for it. Not sure if that's something we  
would like to do though. At this point, the proposal does not seem to  
introduce any new attributes, perhaps for a good reason.

The principle is similar to testing for HTML5 input and attribute  
support:

http://miketaylr.com/code/input-type-attr.html

I think Modernizr is currently the de-facto library to use for HTML5  
feature testing (the above test suite builds on top of it):

http://www.modernizr.com/

-Anssi
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 08:52:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:17 UTC