- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:27:52 +0100
- To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 23:29 , Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:22:54 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
> 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"/>
</feature>
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"
required='false'/>
(The spec needs clarification on @require, but the feature — no pun
intended — is there).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 06:28:31 UTC