W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2007

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Request for Last Call 2

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 13:42:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4640E0A6.8030905@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie 
> <stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote:
>> The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
>> drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the 
>> bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm 
>> since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed.
> This is matches what implementations do.

I don't think we need to match step-by-step what implementations do. 
It's already been concluded that we can't create an XHR spec that follow 
exactly what the current major browsers do, since they are in conflict.

I've said this many times before (in the context of other specs), but it 
bears repeating: I think it's worth sacrificing a little compatibility 
if that makes for a better spec. Every time we add extra complexity for 
the sake of being compatible with a browser we should ask ourselves, 
what is the cost (spec complexity) versus value (few more sites would 
work out-of-the-box). The more obscure the edgecases the smaller the 
value is and the higher the cost is.

This does mean breaking with IE sometimes, and of course with 
Firefox/Opera/Safari too.

That said, I have not yet had time to review the spec, so consider this 
comment a general opinion of mine, not input on this particular feature. 
It may well be that I agree with how the spec stands now.

I'll do a complete review later.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 20:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC