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

Re: hasFeature()

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:13:52 +0700
Message-ID: <CAMQvoCkzNDDwMAezp25FNppVgCjjvbtTaaPmdsm5NZcc4GVf+g@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 Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>> The counters have been in for a while now:
>>
>> http://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/230
>> http://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/231
>>
>> 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.
>
> Done: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commit/2e6526d447637de3b44813e90b15edadbcdcd10b

Cool! For extra points I would also remove all the arguments, since
extra arguments are ignored anyway. WebKit already treats the argument
as optional and returns true for
"document.implementation.hasFeature()" so it ought to be Web
compatible.

Philip
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 17:14:23 UTC

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