- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:26:23 -0700
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:40:44 +0200, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au >> > wrote: >>> Would it be acceptable if I defined one, but made it optional for >>> implementers to support? Or at least optional for ECMAScript >>> implementations? That way an implementation can choose to support >>> it if feature detection is necessary for the language and there is >>> no other way to do it. >> What's the point of making the feature string optional, exactly? > > To avoid forcing implementers to bother implementing such a useless > feature, and potentially lying about their support. Basically, this > should only be for languages other than ECMAScript that don't have > other detection mechanisms available, and where the programmer isn't > always in control of which DOM implementation is in use where the > program is run. (If the programmer is in control of that, then > feature detection is useless since they can just check the > documentation) Since implementing the feature string is trivial, I'd rather it be mandatory. I agree that feature strings are not a great mechanism, but optional features are a greater harm than feature strings. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 18:27:11 UTC