W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > December 2009

Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670912181509w276f4d07x874873521e8a1cdc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>> OK, so is the conclusion that XHR is implementable only in HTML5 and
>> should be re-titled "XMLHttpRequest in HTML5" or something similar?
> I think your premise is false, and I don't such a retitling would be
> helpful. The XHR spec does not require a full implementation of HTML5. It
> only references some concepts from HTML5. The XHR spec could be implemented
> in an SVG or HTML4 or XHTML 1.0 implementation that did not support most
> aspects of HTML5 at all, as long as it could satisfy the requirements
> implied by those definitions. Your proposed title change would imply that
> the XHR spec could only be implemented by an HTML5 UA, but that is not
> accurate.

So, basically, what you are saying is that you can't pick up this spec
and, say, implement it in [insert favorite programming language]
easily without a whole bunch of baggage from HTML5? Seems like pretty
poor engineering, but that might not be the fault of the specification
(i.e., given that XHR is a reverse engineering of something that is
closely tied to browsers). Its a shame though that we can't liberate
these things from browser behavior so they are more generally
applicable. I've seen XHR implemented in other classes of product, but
it'd be a shame if such products can't ever conform to the spec.

> All we have here is a case of suboptimal factoring of the specifications, so
> that some concepts of very general applicability to the Web platform are
> presently only defined in HTML5. Some of them are in the process of being
> broken out, some of them already have been broken out, and more are likely
> to be broken out in the future. XMLHttpRequest is in fact a pretty good
> example of factoring something out of HTML5, and even though we haven't
> cleaned up its whole chain of dependencies, I do not think that is a reason
> to stuff it back into HTML5, or to block progress on perfecting its
> dependencies.
> Regards,
> Maciej
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:14 PM
>> To: Klotz, Leigh
>> Cc: Boris Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
>> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>> As Ian already has mentioned. No one is disputing that most of these
>> things should be factored out of the HTML5 spec. But so far no one has
>> stepped up to that task. Until someone does we'll have to live with the
>> reality that these things are defined in the HTML5 spec and the
>> HTML5 spec alone.
>> / Jonas
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Great!  It sounds like more progress is being made on both putting
>>> experience from implementations back into specifications, and in
>>> modularizing the XHR document references, since it will give a better place
>>> than HTML5 for reference.
>>> Leigh.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:38 PM
>>> To: Klotz, Leigh
>>> Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
>>> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>>> On 12/17/09 2:22 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the clarification.  Surely then this ought to be fixed
>>>> with an IETF or W3C document describing this fact
>>> After some pushback, there is in fact such a document being worked on.
>>> It's not quite far enough to reference normatively last I checked....
>>>> Is it defined in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft ?
>>> Yep.
>>> -Boris

Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 23:10:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:02 UTC