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 15:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4640FD51.6040909@sicking.cc>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On May 8, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> 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:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0654.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0736.html
>> search for 'getElementById'. So it seems to me like they are willing 
>> to fix their engine to whatever makes sense to do.
> No, they are not willing to fix their engine. They just want other 
> browsers to follow the "clean and logical" behavior in the spec while IE 
> preserves the old behavior for existing content forever. At least that's 
> my understanding of their messages about versioning.

Yes, my impression was that they were going to keep old behavior for old 
content, but that they'd be willing to change the behavior for content 
that opt-in.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 22:48:29 UTC

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