Re: hasFeature()
Stephen Chenney <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.dom.general,gmane.comp.web.svg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAObCcUpDF2fiCy-Z3JYM57PCDG1GT5nDoeK=sDF4fOi2iDjmkg@mail.gmail.com> |
I took another look at the usage data now that it has been in Chrome for a while. hasFeature appears in just over 4% of page views (higher than the initial estimates) but it returns false only 0.0036% of the time. It seems to me that it is entirely safe to remove this from the spec and have it always return true during some deprecation period. Cheers, Stephen. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Cool! For extra points I would also remove all the arguments, since > > extra arguments are ignored anyway. WebKit already treats the argument > > as optional and returns true for > > "document.implementation.hasFeature()" so it ought to be Web > > compatible. > > Yeah, that would mean less throwing but that seems fine. > > > https://github.com/whatwg/dom/commit/19a325fd7a2a5313c9956bc1df20ca1f2499b3c7 > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >