W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2004

Transition from Legacy to Native rendering - (was Re: [whatwg] repetition model)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406241544300.27151@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2004 at 14:16, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> > I don't really know what a good solution is. hasFeature() doesn't really
> > work; since it is highly likely that WF2 will be implemented piecemeal,
> > like all other specs. (I have put a hasFeature string into the spec, but I
> > don't think it is enough.)
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions.
>
> Would be best to make good use of hasFeature rather than resort to
> hacks or plain UA name sniffing.
>
> One could "modularise" the WF2 spec somewhat, and specify minor
> version numbers for the various bits? Call the extra INPUT type
> elements and the validation events 2.01, the repeat model 2.02 etc..
>
> Or perhaps make a little hack for the name..
> document.implementation.hasFeature('WebForms+repetition', '2.0')
> anyone?

Doesn't work. For example, look at CSS. Should IE claim to implement
"CSS1+box-model"? What about Opera, should it claim to implement
"CSS2+margin"? And all this assumes script support.

Let's get back to basics. What exactly are the use cases for needing to
know if the UA supports an aspect of WF2?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:53:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:34 UTC