On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Matt <m...@thekrusefamily.com> wrote:
>> If any of our jQuery.support
>> tests had three possible solutions then we would certainly opt for
>> that instead (but, as it turns out, all the things that we test for
>> only fail in a single browser, yielding only one correct alternative
>> solution).
>
> New browsers can pop into existence that you may wish to support
> (Chrome?). If you think of it only as a binary condition, there is no
> room for a new browser that implements it differently. Or, say IE 8.1
> has a bug with opacity and needs its own little tweak. Just having a
> support check for "opacity" won't tell you which fix is needed, and
> you'll be stuck.
A new browser to be support would be enough to warrant a new version
of jQuery, I think. Otherwise, in your IE 8.1 example, you'd still
need a new release to take into account the opacity.
> IMO, it is _more_ future-proof and just better logic. If it's a binary
> decision right now, then it should be all the same from your point of
> view. But if it becomes a non-binary situation, the existing logic
> fails whereas the other method would not.
In terms of logic, I think it definitely makes sense to test for
standards support *first* and then fall back. This (rightly, I think)
assumes that over time browsers will get *more* compliant.
If there's ever a case where a third condition arises, it'd be
relatively trivial to do:
if supports_ standard
standard
else if supports_other_method
other_method
else
other_method2
--
---
David Zhou
da...@nodnod.net
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
