W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

答复: Chair review of the issue-195 form-http-req change proposals

From: Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:54:30 +0000
To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "Edward O'Connor (ted@oconnor.cx)" <ted@oconnor.cx>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AEAA6DB@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
I quickly reviewed this issue, do you mean that the <form> will support put, delete and manipulate the http message body and header in HTML language in the future?
Thanks

Yang
Huawei
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Cameron Jones [mailto:cmhjones@gmail.com] 
发送时间: 2012年6月28日 0:40
收件人: Paul Cotton
抄送: Edward O'Connor (ted@oconnor.cx); Sam Ruby; public-html@w3.org
主题: Re: Chair review of the issue-195 form-http-req change proposals

I've updated the proposal with changes in response to the chair review
and counter proposal:

http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-195


Apologies for the recent delay, this was due to some extenuating
circumstances which have now passed.

Thanks,
Cameron Jones


On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Cameron:
>
>>* Enhance: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-195

> ...
>> The Enhance proposal does not include rationale for each of the separate changes proposed.
> ...
>> Not addressing this comment will negatively affect the chances of the Enhance proposal being adopted.
> ...
>> At the present time, the Enhance proposal reads more like a list of items to be worked rather than as a specific set of edit instructions, as such this needs to be corrected before we allow this issue to proceed to survey.
>
> If your  Enhance change proposal is not changed to reflect the Chairs review (see below) by June 27 then we will consider the Enhance proposal to be withdrawn.
>
> /paulc
> HTML WG co-chair
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:04 AM
> To: public-html@w3.org
> Cc: Cameron Heavon-Jones; Edward O'Connor (ted@oconnor.cx)
> Subject: Chair review of the issue-195 form-http-req change proposals
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-195

>
> 'Enhance http request generation from forms'
>
> Change Proposals:
>
> * Enhance: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Cjones/ISSUE-195

> * Defer:   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-195

>
> The Defer proposal has complete details; its rationale actually serves as the basis for much of this review.
>
> Lack of provided use cases won't prevent the issue from going to survey, but will likely negatively affect the chances of the Enhance proposal being selected.  As such, the Enhance proposal would benefit by addressing this item.
>
> Similarly, lack of UA implementor interest won't prevent the issue from going to survey.  It may not even prevent it from being selected.  But it could very well result in the feature being proposed being pulled later in the cycle as HTML5 proceeds to Recommendation status.
> Addressing this early will prevent needless work.
>
> The Enhance proposal does not include rationale for each of the separate changes proposed. Some rationale is provided addressing "_logout_" and "async", but not most of the other proposed changes. Even the "_logout_"
> and "async" rationale do not contain specific supporting evidence.
>
> Examples of unsupported statements:
>
> - The second half of "The ability to control the HTTP authentication cache is currently unavailable in browsers through any means and represents an unacceptable security hole in the adoption of HTTP authentication."
>
> - "Combined with the ability for form requests to target different browsing contexts this leads to innovation in the development of rich 'webapp' style HTML documents and additional enablement of frames for such purposes. "
>
> Not addressing this comment will negatively affect the chances of the Enhance proposal being adopted.
>
> The complexity of change issue is something that needs to be resolved prior to survey.  The Enhance proposal needs to identify a set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be applied without ambiguity, and the Defer proposal needs to identify specific problems that would need to be addressed.
>
> At the present time, the Enhance proposal reads more like a list of items to be worked rather than as a specific set of edit instructions, as such this needs to be corrected before we allow this issue to proceed to survey.
>
> Until this is corrected, no changes to the Defer proposal are required.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 08:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:32 UTC