- From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:31:59 +0300
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