W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:57:31 +0200
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61ki4297b22v69fiac7ii9re0coagd5mve@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jim Ley wrote:
>Why does this matter?  such a "immediately obvious" is only relevant for 
>people who are simply cutting and pasting code, such people will care not 
>about any standard features, they'll purely care about if it works ...

I can show you plenty of www-validator mails or #validator logs that
provide clear evidence that some authors do care whether some feature
is "approved" or not. And it's easier to tell from obj.mozDoStuff()
whether it's going to work in Opera than from obj.doStuff(), so the
proposed requirements actually provide exactly what's needed here.

>It would not solve the transition between experimental and permanent.  It's 
>also not clear why the WG gets to experiment in the whole namespace, but 
>other groups do not - a PR with no implementations is every bit as 
>experimental and likely to change as a UA's extension.

Yes, the proper extensibility model depends on factors such as how
likely vendors are to have representatives on the Working Group and
how quickly new features can be agreed upon.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 21:57:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC