[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Implementation choices

[Jim Ley]

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.

Jim.