- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:34:32 +0200
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:38:14 +0200, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote: > On 6/8/09 11:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:34:19 +0200, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com> >> wrote: >>> Yes, that was the design. If requestFeature() is introduced,<feature> >>> is basically useless. >> >> Now I'm confused. > > hehe, join the club:) > > But seriously, requestFeature() is some BONDI thing so we should not be > discussing it here. Web Apps does not specify this anywhere: It has no > bearing on the work Web Apps is doing and should not be discussed in the > context of Widgets or within this working group. It may, however, become > a topic of discussion for DAP in the future; but, again, it has > absolutely nothing to do with W3C widgets. You said it might influence whether or not <feature> stays in the specification so it seems it does have something to do with W3C widgets. And if that is indeed the effect of requestFeature(), removing <feature> seems like the best course of action. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 07:35:11 UTC