- From: Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:58:27 +0000
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Sergey <castonet@yahoo.co.uk>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:32:42 +0200, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
> Moving to public-webapps from public-webapi. See original thread here.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/thread.html#msg35
>
> João Eiras wrote:
> >> if (document.querySelector) {
> >> // Supported
> >> } else {
> >> // Not suported
> >> }
> >
> > Too bad that only works with ecmascript.
> > Such syntax is not valid in other languages.
>
> Is there really any demand from implementers of other languages to have
> a feature sting defined for hasFeature()? Is there any evidence that
> people make use of existing feature strings in their programs, using any
> implementation?
>
Speaking as an implementor in Java, I would like to see a feature string defined. I can't provide any evidence that people use feature strings now (largely because existing implementations are in ecmascript where object detection is easier), but without defining a feature string, it would be hard to safely use the Java binding for this feature.
Cheers,
kats
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 05:47:42 UTC