- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:30:09 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
2013/7/31 Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > > Ping --- I thought that there was sufficient agreement in this thread, > > around the fact that supportsContext, as currently spec'd and currently > > implementable, is a feature without a valid use case, that removing it > > from the spec is the right thing to do at this point. > > It's on my list of e-mail to get to. Sorry about the delay. I'm currently > about six months behind on feedback that isn't blocked on other things. > > In this particular case, I should note that we have at least one > implementation, and we have no alternative solution to the problem for > which the feature was added. So it's not as clear cut as it might seem. > As discussed in this thread, the alternative solution is to call getContext and check if it succeeded; I was arguing that if one wants something reliable and tightly spec'd, there is no alternative to doing the same amount of work; and I was also arguing against the notion that something more loosely spec'd (as supportsContext currently is) was useful to have. Benoit > > (Note that decisions for WHATWG specs aren't made based on consensus. Even > if everyone agrees on something, if there's one more compelling argument > to the contrary, that's the one that's going to "win".) > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 19:30:36 UTC