Re: [widgets] feature: inconsistent behavior ?

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Scott Wilson
<> wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2010, at 10:08, Cyril Concolato wrote:
>> I think you misunderstood me.
>> There is a difference between an 'unsupported'/'unavailable' feature as
>> 'foo:bar' in your example and an 'invalid feature name' as in the test-suite
>> example:
>> <widget>
>> <name>d4</name>
>> <feature name="invalid feature IRI" required="true"/>
>> </widget>
>> I'm not asking that 'unsupported'/'unavailable' features are ignored as
>> indeed this would contradict the default value of 'required'. I'm asking
>> that 'invalid' feature are ignored (whether they are required or not). This
>> would be consistent with the rest of the spec.
> If a feature is required by the widget, and it isn't available for any
> reason (including an invalid IRI) then its reasonable for the UA to assume
> this Widget just won't work and reject it. It may simply be a typo, e.g.:
> <feature name="http;//" required="true"/>
>                                    ^ typo!
> I don't think it would be useful for this to silently fail.

FWIW, I agree with Scott. However, Cyril's point is valid in the the
behavior is a bit inconstant with the spec... but, as Scott has shown
through his example, it's with good reason.

Marcos Caceres

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 19:47:06 UTC