- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:53:55 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On 2006/05/10, at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > While this is a neat idea in theory, but is fairly useless in > practice. How many times have you used the similar function > 'hasFeature'? Hopefully pretty much all implementations will very > soon pass the full test suite. If not we have probably written a > too complicated spec. I'd agree, except for the optional features that the UA can perform on behalf of the author; e.g., caching, expect/continue support, conneg, content-codings, cookies, authentication. If the author needs to handle those, or invoke an alternate mechanism, it would be a lot easier if there was some way to find out if they were taking place. > The above methods don't actually even solve the problem you brought > up, the ability to know if a certain http-method is supported. If > we really want that we could add a 'supportsMethod' function or > similar. They were just an example, not a complete proposal. -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 21:54:47 UTC