Transition from Legacy to Native rendering - (was Re: [whatwg] repetition model)

Ian Hickson ian at
Thu Jun 24 08:53:53 PDT 2004

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2004 at 14:16, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I don't really know what a good solution is. hasFeature() doesn't really
> > work; since it is highly likely that WF2 will be implemented piecemeal,
> > like all other specs. (I have put a hasFeature string into the spec, but I
> > don't think it is enough.)
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions.
> Would be best to make good use of hasFeature rather than resort to
> hacks or plain UA name sniffing.
> One could "modularise" the WF2 spec somewhat, and specify minor
> version numbers for the various bits? Call the extra INPUT type
> elements and the validation events 2.01, the repeat model 2.02 etc..
> Or perhaps make a little hack for the name..
> document.implementation.hasFeature('WebForms+repetition', '2.0')
> anyone?

Doesn't work. For example, look at CSS. Should IE claim to implement
"CSS1+box-model"? What about Opera, should it claim to implement
"CSS2+margin"? And all this assumes script support.

Let's get back to basics. What exactly are the use cases for needing to
know if the UA supports an aspect of WF2?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list