W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:05:37 -0800
Message-ID: <E254B0A7E0268949ABFE5EA97B7D0CF4097171B7@USA7061MS01.na.xerox.net>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
 
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:54 AM
  To: Klotz, Leigh
  Cc: Henri Sivonen; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
  Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

  ...<snip>
  > And then go on to cite contain the actual text of the definitions pulled out from XHR.

  Ah, thanks for the concrete example. This makes it clear what you are suggesting.

  What you are saying makes sense. However it seems to add unnecessary overhead to split
  the spec in two to accomplish this, for the spec editor,  for someone implementing the 
  spec, and for someone using the spec. It would seem to be much lower overhead to put 
  these things in an appendix or something similar.

As for someone using the spec, the XHR spec would remain small, and the XHR for HTML5 spec would remain small; all spec users would have small "mind-sized bites" to understand, and it would be clear that XHR works with both HTML5 and can be made to work with other specifications, so it seems a good solution to me.   

However, I'm not one of the Web API editors, so I don't want to say concretely how the problem must be solved, and wasn't directed to do so by the Forms WG comments. The example is the most obvious solution to me, as the problem is about inter-specification dependence, normative language, and conformance, and I believe it should be solved that way.

The Forms WG comment is about the normative reference and the express dependence on the 688-page HTML5 document for definitions.  Part of the issue was addressed in Anne's change, but there is no conformance section which declares the implementation optional, and the normative reference remains. 

Leigh.
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:08:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT