W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2008

[whatwg] Scripted <video> query proposal

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:31:59 +0300
Message-ID: <26b395e60808251631u2244495em63d8a8e04e117249@mail.gmail.com>
For some strange definition of lie. You're defining a lie as ok and
saying it isn't lying.

i still don't see why this is valuable. Can you provide use cases
where you won't harm my users? This probably means setting up a web
page which explains what you're doing and how you're going to fall
back and what happens when my users use noscript or simply disable js.

On 8/23/08, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org
>> <mailto:tstarling at wikimedia.org>> wrote:
>>     interface HTMLMediaElement {
>>        ...
>>        boolean supportsType(in DOMString type);
>>        ...
>>     }
>>     The supportsType() method must return false if the user agent is
>>     sure it
>>     cannot support the given type, and true if the user agent either can
>>     support the given type, or cannot determine whether it can support the
>>     given type.
>> Wouldn't it be better to return three possible values: "yes", "no" and
>> "don't know"?
> With this proposal, I'm trying to find a compromise between the opinions
> put forward on this list. Personally I'd be happy either way, as long as
> the interface gets added in some form.
> The yes = maybe definition pre-empts the tendency of user agents to lie
> about their capabilities.
> -- Tim Starling

Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 16:31:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:04 UTC