W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Implementation choices

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:03:17 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d3105012105035c4f788e@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:47:07 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> > >
> > > Not a very big deal IMHO, I don't think hasFeature really works anyway.
> >
> > It doesn't, can we please not bother with it?
> 
> I'd be more than happy to drop hasFeature(), but I've been asked to have
> it by DOM people. It probably won't do any harm. (FWIW, the spec says
> basically any UA can return true; it's not a test of conformance, but of
> intention. As you say, you wouldn't be able to test conformance.)

Please include a big warning in the specification stating that
returning true is possible even if not a single part of Web Forms 2.0
is supported, indeed it's possible eventhe browser is guaranteed to
crash when WF2 DOM methods are used.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 05:03:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC