- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:28 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17242 --- Comment #2 from Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> 2012-05-30 23:07:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Nobody has implemented AnonXMLHttpRequest to my knowledge. So the first > question should be whether we want to have it at all I think. I don't feel strongly either way, but I don't see a rush to drop it either. Is keeping it in a lot of maintenance work for the spec? I'm a little bummed/annoyed none of the proponents of this stepped up to implement it given how strongly they fought for it. > Then, secondly, if we add an object to initialize XMLHttpRequest, maybe we > should give that "url", "method", ... parameters? Yes, that would be great. I have a minor aesthetic preference for the initialization object over the new constructor, and while we're at it, a mild preference for naming the property "anonymous" instead of "anon". I don't think this is a case where shortness will have much impact on the convenience or uptake of the API (unlike, e.g. querySelector --> find). -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 23:07:31 UTC