- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:21:58 -0400
- To: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>, public-media-capture@w3.org
All WebIDL does is remove the member, it doesn't guarantee failure. UA implementations can equally ignore to fail on missing dictionaries, so I see no difference there. .: Jan-Ivar :. On 5/19/14 12:03 PM, Jim Barnett wrote: > According to Martin's email, WebIDL _should_ cause the UA to fail to > detect unsupported dictionary elements, even though not all UAs work > this way. But if some UAs do work this way, isn't it dangerous to > assume that they can detect unsupported elements? Mandatory > constraints mentioning unsupported properties wouldn't fail on those UAs. > > On 5/19/2014 11:31 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: >> On 5/18/14 12:07 PM, Jim Barnett wrote: >>> I agree with Martin. If the author says that 'foo' is required, >>> then doesn't specify it. Furthermore, the fact that the constraint >>> is missing is how we detect unsupported mandatory constraints. If >>> the UA doesn't support the 'height' attribute, and the author >>> specifies it in a mandatory constraint with 'require', the situation >>> will look to the UA just like the one described in the bug. >> >> Actually, turns out I was wrong. The UA doesn't actually require >> absent member to fail to detect unsupported constraints, since it >> knows exactly what it supports and doesn't support already (this >> became clear once I implemented it). >> >> So I think I agree with Cullen here. >> >> .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 16:22:27 UTC