- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:38:02 -0700
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > > Hi, Henri- > > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2007, at 20:40, Jon Barnett wrote: >>> Hixie pointed out that you can detect support for certain features >>> using Javascript [1], such as writing PING as uppercase in the DOM, >>> and then checking the HTMLAnchorElement.ping property >>> (lowercase). I >>> suspect the same logic can apply to new input/@type values - use >>> <input type="date">, and then check the HTMLInputElement.type >>> property >>> for either "date" or "text". >> This is the best way because the test for the existence of the >> implementation involves testing the implementation itself. > > In certain cases, this is a reasonable statement. But it isn't > universally applicable. For instance, if you'll look at another > MathML testcase [1], you'll see the problem. Testing for the property or method directly is the best way to test for DOM interfaces (it's more fine-grained than anything hasFeature will give you) but it doesn't seem that great a way to test for implementation of markup interfaces and attributes. However, this is only relevant for elements and attributes that have a rendering effect which can't be seen in CSS, or a behavior effect that is not tied to any scripting interfaces. For HTML5 itself, I think that is a pretty small subset. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 05:38:10 UTC