- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
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