- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:32:49 +0200
- 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 http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 09:33:28 UTC