On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:31:54 +0200, Simon Pieters <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:34:38 +0200, Smylers <[email protected]> wrote:The current text suggests that a user-agent may choose to support only the HTML syntax (not XHTML) but should still return true for hasFeature("XHTML", "5.0"). If that isn't intended then the requirements for hasFeature() should be changed to depend on the syntaxes chosen to be implemented. If it _is_ intended (and given various things browsers have to do for web compatibility, it wouldn't surprise me) then perhaps it would be better to spell this out explicitly, since it's counter-intuitive. hasFeature() currently has the implementation requirements: User agents should respond with a true value when the hasFeature method is queried with these values. -- http://www.whatwg.org/html5#dom-feature-strings: Where "these values" are ("HTML", "5.0") and ("XHTML", "5.0"). However while supporting both HTML and XHTML is "encouraged", user-agents "may" choose to support only one of them: http://www.whatwg.org/html5#conformance-requirementsMaybe the spec should remove these feature strings altogether and encourage authors to use more accurate methods of detecting support.
The spec is now gaining all the remaining stuff from DOM2 HTML, so this note is incorrect:
"Note: The interfaces defined in this specification are not always supersets of the interfaces defined in DOM2 HTML; some features that were formerly deprecated, poorly supported, rarely used or considered unnecessary have been removed. Therefore it is not guaranteed that an implementation that supports "HTML" "5.0" also supports "HTML" "2.0"."
I'm thinking that the spec should maybe just use "2.0" instead of "5.0", since it's what browsers do and there might be pages that check for this.
Meanwhile it seems useful to return false as appropriate if the UA only allows one of the syntaxes, as Smylers points out.
-- Simon Pieters Opera Software
