- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:01:02 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 10/17/09 2:33 AM): > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:46:56 +0200, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >> Sorry for the tardy response. >> >> This was an unfortunate oversight. I've now added this to the proposed >> errata [1]. Please let me know if this suits your needs. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222-errata#S1 > > Didn't we explicit decide against this because you could easily feature > test it? I don't recall that, and can't find any reference to it in the archives... do you have a link? It's possible it was discussed in some telcon of F2F that I don't recall, but was not minuted. In any case, I don't believe that adding a feature string is harmful or introduces significant implementation burden. If it is reported accurately, it is useful, and in non-browser environments, where there may be different DOM implementations available, it is necessary for the DOMImplementationRegistry (as Michael mentioned). I've heard people complain about hasFeature() and feature strings before, on the grounds that implementations may dishonestly report false support, but I don't know of any instance of that happening... it would be interesting if you do know of such a case. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Saturday, 17 October 2009 23:01:04 UTC