I mean that the implementation is not a true feature, but a quasi-bug in disguise. This definition sums up my use of the term fairly well (http://encyclopedia2

I mean that the implementation is not a true feature, but a quasi-bug in disguise. This definition sums up my use of the term fairly well (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/misfeature http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/misfeature): >A feature that eventually causes lossage, possibly because it is not adequate for a new situation that has evolved. Since it results from a deliberate and properly implemented feature, a misfeature is not a bug. Nor is it a simple unforeseen side effect; the term implies that the feature in question was carefully planned, but its long-term consequences were not accurately or adequately predicted... At some point, someone must have thought that allowing JavaScript access to the clipboard would be a neat idea. And on a whiteboard, it does seem like a neat idea. But in the extremely hostile environment of the Internet, where every feature will be abused in the most user-hostile ways possible, it is a liability rather than an asset. The Internet has a long history of such features: the ability of a page to spawn new windows, which led to popups, is the one of the most glaring to casual users, but Usenet's CANCEL messages and the ensuing Hipcrime debacle is IMO more to the point. The prevailing attitude when developing desktop operating systems, which provide tools to developers under the assumption that they will be reasonably careful with them ('with great power comes great responsibility'), fails completely on the Internet. On the desktop, you can assume that obviously flawed, hostile software will get eliminated by the market -- a few people might get burned, but then nobody will install it, problem solved. On the Internet, this doesn't work; if you release a browser with a "feature" that can be exploited to take advantage of users or even to merely annoy them, it will be used, and it won't just be used a few times, it will be used over, and over, and over ... until the feature is hardened or removed (e.g. the BLINK tag, early ActiveX). I am very concerned that the rush to provide desktop-application-like capabilities to web apps will open a huge can of worms in terms of the new avenues for abuse that it allows, and the overall effect of this -- when the abuse happens in spades, which it will -- will be to cause users to disable those features globally, and distrust web apps in general.