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

RE: Feedback from the IE Team: Web API XHR Draft

From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:34:27 +0200
Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV12F4981DA602791C34F67BA4B20@phx.gbl>
To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c801b2$c3af2120$0a01a8c0@mikedeskxp>

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> What we should do is build the best spec we can to move the 
> web forward. 

Yes, I most definitively agree that should be the main goal. What
differs may be our interpretation of how to best get there. 
IE has the greatest market share so to move the web forward it is
important to get them on the wagon. If changes can be done to the
spec that eases that, and doesn't harm everybody else, then I 
think they are probably a Good Thing.

>   I'd be very interested to hear arguments for changes to the 
> spec to do that.

What my previous mail really boils down to is "either do less, or
more". The XHR spec isn't "sexy" as it doesn't add new
functionality (for the record note that I don't think a spec needs 
to be sexy), but still introduces quite a lot of new formal stuff
for XHR.

So, the IE team (I'm just guessing here) are faced with a spec that 
is not sexy (no new killer feature to offer developers) but with a 
lot of work involved implementing considering references to other 
unimplemented specs.

So my suggestion is to either do less, ie concentrating on the core
part of XHR and not mandating that not-so-important parts be in
place, so it will be less work to implement.
Or, add more functionality to the spec so the new XHR will be 
"sexier" and will therefore give a "better bang for the buck" 
invested.

Best regards
Mike
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 09:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:58 GMT