- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:37:21 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>
On 3/7/11, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:13:41 +0100, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> Garrett Smith: >>> That feature [hasFeature()] cannot be reliably used for the web. >> >> The fact that it isn't reliable today isn't proof that it is a bad API >> (hence, Doug's "reductio ad absurdum" comment). > > I thought we long ago reached the conclusion that hasFeature() is a bad > API and should not be used. DOM Core warns against using it and does not > allow other specifications to introduce new non-legacy DOM features. > Decoupling feature support from features is not something that has worked > well to date. > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-features > "Warning! Authors are strongly discouraged from using DOM features, as they are notoriously unreliable and imprecise. Authors are encouraged to rely on explicit feature testing or graceful degradation." I like it! DOMImplementation hasFeature method is designed in such a way that allows features without feature strings to exist. -- Garrett
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 01:37:54 UTC