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 14:08:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4640E6BE.9040004@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, not even Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to just blindly follow 
IE. See:


search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are willing to 
fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 21:11:05 UTC

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