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

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 05:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604260500490.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> None of the existing vendor extensions to XMLHttpRequest follow the 
> vendor prefix naming convention. So far as I know, every major 
> implementation has at least one extension relative to the current 
> proposed spec. Therefore, requiring a vendor prefix would put all 
> existing implementations out of compliance. And there would be no 
> foreseeable path to compliance since it is unlikely vendors would rename 
> existing extensions, especially ones shared between multiple vendors. 
> This seems like a show stopper for applying the vendor prefix convention 
> to everything.

Just have the spec say the preferred syntax for extensions is to have the 
vendor name in the extension. No reason to make any sort of conformance 
statement out of it -- how would you test it anyway?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 05:01:57 UTC

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