[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Implementation choices

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 07:50:39 PST 2005

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:44:25 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> > - implementation.hasFeature("WebForms", "2.0") cannot be supported
> Not a very big deal IMHO, I don't think hasFeature really works anyway.

It doesn't, can we please not bother with it?  Especially given that
(quoting Ian on www-qa)

For any even mildly complicated specification it
will always be possible to show that a user agent is in some way
non-compliant, it's just a matter of finding a suitable test.

So we agree that actual support for WebForms is never going to be
complete even if a UA believes they've passed all their current tests.

It would be a good idea if we didn't have any machine claim to
conformance, as otherwise we'd have to define what that conformance
meant - you can claim support if you implement 80% of the features and
pass 90% of the relevant test-cases to those features or whatever.  To
avoid having to try and specify this, it would be much better if we
simply removed the hasFeature check.


More information about the whatwg mailing list