W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Extension methods & XMLHttpRequest

From: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:53:24 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <16934.194.221.74.7.1150185204.squirrel@mail1.webfaction.com>
To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


>> How do we draw a useful line between what counts as a user
>> interaction, and allowing "web applications" a rich set of interaction
>> methods which do count as user interactions for this purpose?
>>
>> If it's to be specified, be careful, as the Firefox folks had a few
>> learning iterations before they got it about right for popups.
>
> I think we at least are now asking the right question :-)

Indeed. However when I see the different directions taken by this thread,
I wonder if the question would not be more to clearly define what is
expected from web applications.

This discussion focuses on the XMLHttpRequest object and tries to use its
features to design web applications. But XMLHttpRequest is a tool. When I
see comparing IFrames to XMLHttpRequest, I see a discussion around "let's
find a hack to work around HTTP principles", not a discussion of "How
should we make HTTP evolving in the coming years so that it can cope with
what the Web is heading to?".

Folks who wrote the HTTP protocol designed it so well that today HTTP is
the most spreaded and used protocol. XMLHttpRequest and IFrames are not
protocols, they are tools and they will be eventually replaced by
yet-another-marketed-technology in the next few years. HTTP will still be
there.

It really sounds like no one is ready to undertake a process of updating
HTTP and prefer to patch around it and see no further than the coming
quarters which will eventually lead to a big mess of piled hacks.

- Sylvain
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2006 07:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:44 GMT