- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:28:01 -0700
- To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> Message-ID: <3A92DD77.7C9676BC@w3.org> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:11:19 -0500 > From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> > To: Martijn Pieters <mj@digicool.com> > Cc: www-dom@w3.org > Subject: Re: DOMImplementation.hasFeature and 'Core', 'XML' and '1.0'. > > Martijn Pieters wrote: >> So, should a DOM level 2 implementation return true on hasFeature('Core', >> '1.0) or hasFeature('XML', '1.0')? I *think* it should, but would like to >> hear confirmation. > > The definition of version '1.0' is driven by the DOM Level 1 specification. > The DOM Level 2 specification doesn't say anything about > hasFeature('Core', '1.0') and I don't think it has to, given that you can't > expect a DOM Level 1 implementation to return true. > hasFeature('XML', '1.0') must definitively return true for a DOM Level 2 > implementation since DOM Level 2 is build on top of DOM Level 1. > > Philippe Redirecting a reply to www-dom-ts since I am raising a DOM 2 Core Test Suite issue (in response to a message over two years old!). I tried searching the archives, and this is the most recent relevant reference I could find to the question of whether it is correct for the test suite to test hasFeature("Core","1.0"). I don't think the DOM 2 Core Test Suite should be performing that check, since no DOM 1 Core implementation could be required to return true for that since "Core" wasn't added as a feature flag until DOM 2. The following tests in the DOM 2 Core Test Suite appear to make that assumption however, and thus should be fixed to not expect hasFeature("Core","1.0") to return a meaningful value. isSupported03.html isSupported08.html isSupported12.html Thanks, Tantek --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tantek Çelik tantek@cs.stanford.edu Tasman Development Lead, Microsoft Corporation tantekc@microsoft.com Representative to W3C CSS and HTML working groups ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 00:27:49 UTC