Re: [ElementTraversal]: Feature string for DOMImplementation.hasFeature(feature, version)?

Hi all,

Just thought I'd check again. Has this been discussed or resolved? We're
planning on having a Xerces-J release in December and would be nice if we
could provide this to users (assuming the spec plans to adopt it).

Thanks.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org

Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com> wrote on 06/01/2009 10:47:07 PM:

> Hi Arthur / Doug,
>
> Just following up. Has there been any discussion on this issue?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michael Glavassevich
> XML Parser Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
> E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
> E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org
>
> Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote on 01/14/2009 10:07:36 AM:
>
> > Hi Michael - Doug agreed to respond to this e-mail so expect a
> > reply/proposal from him RSN.
> >
> > -Regards, Art Barstow
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:02 AM, ext Michael Glavassevich wrote::
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > The DOM Core specification and other DOM modules define feature
> > strings [1] which applications can query to check whether or not a
> > specific DOM module is supported by a DOMImplementation. For
> > example, DOM Level 2 Traversal and Range [2] says: "A DOM
> > application may use the hasFeature(feature, version) method of the
> > DOMImplementation interface with parameter values "Traversal" and
> > "2.0" (respectively) to determine whether or not this module is
> > supported by the implementation." These feature strings are also
> > useful for selecting a DOMImplementation which supports a specific
> > set of features through the methods provided by
> DOMImplementationRegistry [3].
> >
> > After reading the spec it doesn't seem like Element Traversal has
> > such a string defined for it, so applications would have no standard
> > way for selecting a DOMImplementation which supports Element
> > Traversal or determining whether the DOMImplementation instance they
> > already have supports it. Is there a reason a feature string was
> > omitted from the spec? An oversight, perhaps? Can this be added to
> the errata?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/core.
> > html#DOMFeatures
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Traversal-
> > Range-20001113/traversal.html#Traversal-overview
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/core.
> > html#Bootstrap
> >
> > Michael Glavassevich
> > XML Parser Development
> > IBM Toronto Lab
> > E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
> > E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org