W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [XHR] Status Update

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:37:58 -0700
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <DE8C4E42-A20C-45D4-87C0-DE5529699A12@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On Aug 9, 2010, at 6:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> 
> As a result of working on the test suite I found a few minor issues that would be nice to resolve (I'm not particularly interested in the solution to each of these problems, but I thought I would propose one in order to move things forward). I filed these bugs on them:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10322

I agree with this change.

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10323

I'll have to think about this one. It does seem like a feature addition, and it's late in the game for that. It's not totally clear to me that responseXML is the best way to expose parsing of HTML documents, since there is no way to feature test for it. CR is probably too late to be adding features, especially when it's not 100% clear it is the right design.

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10324

Agree, assuming there is no Web compatibility issue.

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10325

Agree.

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10326

How do implementations currently behave in this case?

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10327

I'm not sure what the current proposal is here. I don't think a scheme whitelist is right.

>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10328

Seems ok to me, if there is no compatibility issue.

> 
> I discussed with Art that I would not make changes to the editor's draft for non-editorial changes until the WG agrees to a change. As such I propose we have a Call for Consensus for each of the bugs above a couple of days from now when people have had a change to take initial look. Bugs with comments indicating that my solution may not be correct should be excluded from the Call for Consensus until the concerns are addressed in some way.
> 
> 
> The tentative plan is to stay in Candidate Recommendation and update the Editor's Draft with changes as the WG agrees to them. As well as maintaining a test suite and tracking implementation conformance to that test suite. Then once we have two implementations that are conforming we can have another Last Call and hopefully move straight to Proposed Recommendation as we have proven that it can be implemented in interoperable fashion. (The security considerations document will have to be done as well by then, of course.)


Which of the changes above would require us to drop back to Working Draft and have another Last Call? Any of them, or just a subset?

If we do have another Last Call, I would prefer to go to CR again and not short-circuit the process. I place more value on careful process than on getting to REC quickly.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 22:38:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT