W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: hasFeature()

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:39:09 +0700
Message-ID: <CAMQvoCk1zpdWrMVmKxbF__TocZN1+wDN8agGJLqktBk8OaaEkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Stephen Chenney <schenney@chromium.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>> There was some double work, which I apologize for, but these counters
>> are now in Blink:
>> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=335301
>> In a few months, we should be able to say both how common hasFeature
>> itself is and how often it returns false. Hopefully we can make it
>> always return true or even remove it altogether.
> Thanks Philip and Stephen. Please reply to this thread at that point
> and I'll update the specification accordingly.

The counters have been in for a while now:


These are not the numbers used to make decisions to deprecate or
remove, but I think it gives a ballpark estimate of where it's going
to end up. hasFeature itself is just above the 0.03% threshold for
removal, and returning false is far below it.

I suggest changing the spec to always return true now, and to track
the other counter for a while longer before deciding.

Received on Sunday, 9 March 2014 17:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:22 UTC