[whatwg] 2.2.1. DOM feature strings

[Anne van Kesteren]

Quoting ROBO Design <robodesign at gmail.com>:
> a)
>> User agents should respond with a true value when the hasFeature
>> method is queried with these values.
>
> Why the word "should" is being used? This allows implementors to 
> simply  not implement this, therefore not providing authors a way to 
> check for  HTML 5 support (WA 1.0).

Nobody in his right mind would use hasFeature to check for support. It 
is merely
there for compatibility and joy.


> b) The feature string "XHTML" combined with version string "5.0" is 
> to me  not very inspired. Simple reason: XHTML 2. What if they get to 
> XHTML 5? In  my opinion, checking for XHTML 5.0 should *not* be 
> available.

How else can you check if XHTML support is on? Furthermore, XHTML 2 does not
define DOM interfaces so that should not be a problem. (They're not 
planning to
do so either.)


> c) hasFeature("WA", "1.0") should be also available, because the  
> specification defines Web Applications 1.0 (aka HTML 5).

Neh. If all goes well the specification will eventually be called HTML 5.


> d)
>> in general, therefore, use of this method is discouraged.
>
> How are authors supposed to check for WA 1.0 support in the user 
> agent? I  agree that user agents are not perfect and therefore they 
> might return  true (or false) even if they do (not) support WA 1.0.

Incremental innovation. How do you check which user agent supports 
html:canvas?
How do you check which user agent supports the CSS color value "orange"? You
don't.

Cheers,

Anne


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>