- From: Andy Earnshaw <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 16:02:32 -0800
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/webcomponents/issues/610/264595291@github.com>
Why bother supporting v0 in your library? It's not widely implemented and you'll likely be supporting browsers with no shadow DOM long after market share of v0-only browsers has dwindled to nothing. Adding a version identifier isn't very useful beyond detecting v0 as future versions will always be backwards compatible and feature detection is the best way to work with new specs. On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, 23:24 Joseph Orbegoso Pea, <notifications@github.com> wrote: > I'd also like to suggest that since a non-standard feature is shipped, > shipping an additional non-standard feature for detecting differing > versions of the first non-standard feature would also be highly appreciated > in light of the fact that living real world applications might be using one > version or the other. > > On Nov 28, 2016 5:53 AM, "Domenic Denicola" <notifications@github.com> > wrote: > > > Furthermore, we generally don't add features to the standard to work > > around the fact that one vendor ships a nonstandard API. > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/610#issuecomment-262624212 > >, > > or mute the thread > > < > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AASKzqS8VhtxGuNjvQIO_h2QeKULzX8Fks5rBKPkgaJpZM4K7A8C > > > > . > > > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/610#issuecomment-264589644>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABvdE7-JlJM1XA5bvxSsewRkaBngIGoqks5rEKiUgaJpZM4K7A8C> > . > -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/610#issuecomment-264595291
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2016 00:03:07 UTC