Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:40:44 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it be acceptable if I defined one, but made it optional for
implementers to support? Or at least optional for ECMAScript
implementations? That way an implementation can choose to support
it if feature detection is necessary for the language and there is
no other way to do it.
What's the point of making the feature string optional, exactly?
To avoid forcing implementers to bother implementing such a useless
feature, and potentially lying about their support. Basically, this
should only be for languages other than ECMAScript that don't have
other detection mechanisms available, and where the programmer isn't
always in control of which DOM implementation is in use where the
program is run. (If the programmer is in control of that, then
feature detection is useless since they can just check the documentation)
Lachlan, shall the "Events" feature string be dropped from Events module
then as well? The Events (Level-3) is now a working draft, so it could
be a good moment of time to doing so!
In case it is not going to be dropped, then there is no sense to not
including "Selectors" feature string in the "Selectors API"
specification, given the fact that every other DOM module is required to
provide one (correct me if I am wrong).
Also, could it be a good idea to contact great people who have set up
the DOM-family specifications for use cases they had in mind with the
DOM modules' "featuring" features.
Sergey Ilinsky/
