RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional? from Travis Leithead on 2012-09-28 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2012)

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:56:28 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B383847CE48@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntde>

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> 
> On 9/28/12 12:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> > It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather
> than spec support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for
> example.
> 
> You have it backwards.  That's checking for the file API bits.  How do you
> check whether you can actually work with URL objects?

I guess you'd check for URL.href then? Or try { new URL("/test"); } catch (ex) { console.log("not supported"); }

Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 19:57:22 UTC