Hi, Anne-
Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 10/17/09 2:33 AM):
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:46:56 +0200, Doug Schepers <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry for the tardy response.
This was an unfortunate oversight. I've now added this to the proposed
errata [1]. Please let me know if this suits your needs.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222-errata#S1
Didn't we explicit decide against this because you could easily feature
test it?
I don't recall that, and can't find any reference to it in the
archives... do you have a link? It's possible it was discussed in some
telcon of F2F that I don't recall, but was not minuted.
In any case, I don't believe that adding a feature string is harmful or
introduces significant implementation burden. If it is reported
accurately, it is useful, and in non-browser environments, where there
may be different DOM implementations available, it is necessary for the
DOMImplementationRegistry (as Michael mentioned).
I've heard people complain about hasFeature() and feature strings
before, on the grounds that implementations may dishonestly report false
support, but I don't know of any instance of that happening... it would
be interesting if you do know of such a case.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
