Re: [widgets] <option>s on <feature>s

On Mar 18, 2009, at 23:29 , Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:22:54 +0100, Robin Berjon <>  
> wrote:
>> I see a limited use case for the sort of example you propose, but  
>> I'm nevertheless going to push back against it. One reason is that  
>> it can already be described with features, to witness:
>> <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/read"/>
> Getting in to the edge cases here: What if I have an application  
> where falling back to read access is acceptable, if write fails (In  
> other words, failure to adhere to some option is not fatal)?

What you describe seems to be:

<feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/write">
   <feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/read"/>

but I don't think that's what you mean. I believe you mean that the  
author wants read, and optional write:

<feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/read"/>
<feature name="url_describing_filesystem_api/music/write"  

(The spec needs clarification on @require, but the feature  no pun  
intended  is there).

Robin Berjon -
     Feel like hiring me? Go to

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 06:28:31 UTC