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