- From: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvors@online.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:40:47 +0200
[Following up a backchannel correspondence, which I think should go
to the list too. I hope you don't mind, Jim.]
On 16 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:37:34 +0200, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
> <hallvors at online.no> wrote:
> > On 14 Jun 2004 at 0:58, Jim Ley wrote:
> > if(! (document.implementation && document.implementation.hasFeature
> > && document.implementation.hasFeature('WebForms', '2.0') ) ){
> > // create SCRIPT element or write SCRIPT tag linking in the WF2
> > // JavaScript libraries here
> > }
Jim:
> I don't like it so much, you're associating
> lack of DOM support with lack of WebForms support, I don't think we
> can do that unless Web Forms 2.0 requires DOM support.
AFAIK there is no other way to call hasFeature. You must test if
document.implementation exists to avoid errors in older UAs.
So, any points of view from others on the list?
1) How likely is it that a UA that supports WebForms 2 but not DOM
will emerge?
2) To what extent will the JS equivalent of WebForms 2 rely on DOM so
that it should not be loaded into such a UA anyway? A script
alternative to the <repeat> functionality will obviously require good
DOM-support, most of the pure validation stuff not.
3) Is it possible or desirable that any UA that implements WebForms 2
and JavaScript MUST support document.implementation.hasFeature in
order to make scripts aware that they are compliant with the
specification? I guess that is a question for Ian..
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 07:40:47 UTC