- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:46:32 +0100
- To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "cyril.concolato" <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> 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;//bondi.omtp.org/api/camera.capture" 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 http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 19:47:06 UTC