- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:57:18 +0100
- Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:46:42 +0100, Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com> wrote: >> Please note that members of the WG also found two minor editorial >> issues [3] > > [[[ > 3. Interoperability Considerations: "... such implementations could > return different results from those that do support them" gives > implementations too much leeway and applications too little > information about why they're getting inconsistent results. The > specification should require one of these behaviors: > - if a selector is used that is not supported by the implementation, > the implementation must return null (for querySelector) or an empty > list (for querySelectorAll). > - if a selector is used that is not supported by the implementation, > the implementation must raise an exception. > ]]] > >> [3] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2008Dec/0006.html I have revised the Interoperability Consideration section to more accurately reflect the result of different levels of Selector support and offer advice for dealing with it. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#interoperability Please let me know if you are satisfied with this repsonse. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 14:57:58 UTC