W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] What does it mean to have an unavailable API

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:32:49 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906090232t11b8882fubb464de7ddeaf379@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
2009/6/9 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>:
> 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.

Like I said, as far as WebApps is concerned requestFeature() does not
exists. What I meant was the requestFeature() undermines <feature>
without addressing the security issues.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 09:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC