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

Re: [widgets] Draft Minutes from 10 June 2009 f2f meeting

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:54:34 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906170854h56dec104m5f69eb5760225891@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Scott,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Scott
Wilson<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> One scenario for hasFeature():
> 1. I install a Widget with:
> <feature name="http://my.feature.com/x" required="false"/>
> 2. In my Widget's JavaScript, I have something like:
> if (hasFeature("http://my.feature.com/x")){
> doCoolThing(); // great, we have the X API! Lets use it
> } else {
> doLessCoolThing(); // ok do something that doesn't need the X API
> }
> How can this be realised if hasFeature() is removed? Or should this UC be
> specifically out of scope for A&E? For example, would I have to create two
> different widgets, one with X and one without?

During the F2F, we dropped the feature because it was too problematic.
As Henri Sivonen pointed out, it is easy to say a feature is available
but not have it fully implemented. Other means of testing for the
availability of a feature will be required (like testing if an object
is available in JS, etc.). The WG will not be defining what those
methods are, however.

> Without hasFeature(), what does P&C <feature ... required="false"> mean?

The definition given in the spec still holds. hasFeature() and the
semantics of the feature element and its attributes are orthogonal.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 15:55:39 UTC

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