- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:32:42 +0200
- To: João Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sergey <castonet@yahoo.co.uk>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Kartikaya Gupta <kagupta@rim.com>
Moving to public-webapps from public-webapi. See original thread here.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/thread.html#msg35
João Eiras wrote:
>> if (document.querySelector) {
>> // Supported
>> } else {
>> // Not suported
>> }
>
> Too bad that only works with ecmascript.
> Such syntax is not valid in other languages.
Is there really any demand from implementers of other languages to have
a feature sting defined for hasFeature()? Is there any evidence that
people make use of existing feature strings in their programs, using any
implementation?
Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
>>> What I think *is* inside the scope is to ensure that user-agents have some
>>> unambiguous way to state whether or not they claim to implement the
>>> specification. I think the feature string is much more reliable way to
>>> do that than checking the existence of a "querySelector" method.
>>
>> Why would any browser implementor implement one and not the other?
>
> Because they might already be using the "querySelector" method for some
> completely unrelated feature.
This seems like a very unrealistic edge case, considering we went to a
lot of effort to find names that didn't clash with existing features in
many implementations, not only browsers.
Since I've not seen any support for this proposal from any implementers
at all, and no substantial evidence that people actually make use of
existing feature strings in any environment, I'm not prepared to include
it at this stage.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:33:24 UTC