[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Implementation choices
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jan 21 05:03:17 PST 2005
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:47:07 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> > >
> > > Not a very big deal IMHO, I don't think hasFeature really works anyway.
> > It doesn't, can we please not bother with it?
> I'd be more than happy to drop hasFeature(), but I've been asked to have
> it by DOM people. It probably won't do any harm. (FWIW, the spec says
> basically any UA can return true; it's not a test of conformance, but of
> intention. As you say, you wouldn't be able to test conformance.)
Please include a big warning in the specification stating that
returning true is possible even if not a single part of Web Forms 2.0
is supported, indeed it's possible eventhe browser is guaranteed to
crash when WF2 DOM methods are used.
More information about the whatwg