On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:50 AM, 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<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#dom-features> What ended up happening here? I'd like to second Anne's vote to remove the bits of DOM Events that extend hasFeature. FYI, this came up in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76214.
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 20:27:52 UTC