W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: IE Team's Feedback on the XHR Draft

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:32:35 -0500
Message-ID: <47AB8703.7060303@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <zhenbinx@windows.microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, Ahmed Kamel <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>

Hi, Anne-

I'm stepping in here to inform on a matter of process.  This is not a 
judgment on the technical merits of either position.


Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 2/7/08 5:42 AM):
>
>> o   As per our agreement in the tech plenary the spec will conform to 
>> IE's implementation of XHR (with the exception of constants) and will 
>> be changed accordingly. The tests are important for us and other UAs 
>> as it's the guarantor of that.
> 
> We have had no such agreement. I indicated that we have followed the IE 
> for a lot of scenarios, but there are some deviations.

It is true that there was no formal resolution on this issue.

(As an aside: Sunava, for future reference, it's most expeditious to 
request a formal resolution on matters about which you feel very 
strongly.  This clears up any ambiguity, makes a point of reference for 
future discussion, and gives opponents an opportunity to present 
counter-arguments. )

However, I seem to recall general agreement about this point among the 
majority of participants; alas, this was not clearly captured in the 
minutes (though the minutes are good, it's hard to grab general sentiment).

Moreover, this is, in fact, what this WG was chartered to do regarding XHR:
"This deliverable should begin by documenting the existing 
XMLHttpRequest interface."

The question becomes, is IE's implementation to be considered canonical, 
or is it up to interpretation vis a vis later implementations (FF, 
Opera, Safari, et al)?

Pursuant to that, is there a way to document the existing behavior such 
that it does not make existing implementation retroactively 
"non-conforming"?  Or that does not affect existing content?  I don't 
know whether or not the existing specification meets these criteria, but 
I think that would be the best path forward.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/admin/charter

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 22:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2008 22:32:41 GMT