W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:15:15 +0100
To: "public-webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <op.v5ep3p1dwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:54:10 +0100, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>  
wrote:

> [[ removed the chairs list since I think this is now mostly a WebApps  
> thing ... ]]
>
> I haven't seen any objections to dropping XHR1 and voices of support to  
> redirect the XMLHttpRequest2 shortname to XMLHttpRequest.
>
> I think it would be helpful to some readers if the new XHR spec (i.e.  
> the spec formerly titled XHR2) included a short note about the  
> consolidation of the work and after a publication or two, the note could  
> be removed.
>
> It seems like the main points to include in a new WD of the new XHR spec  
> are:
>
> * All work has stopped on the spec that was formerly titled  
> "XMLHttpRequest"  (also referred to as XMLHttpRequest Level 1 and XHR1)  
> and last published as a Candidate Recommendation on 2 August 2010.
>
> * WebApps will only work on what was previously titled the  
> "XMLHttpRequest Level 2" spec (aka XHR2) but note that spec is now  
> titled "XMLHttpRequest" and uses the XMLHttpRequest shortname  
> (w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest) that was previously used for XHR1.
>
> Chaals, All - WDYT?

Yep, agree.

> (I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about the Previous Version links  
> in the new XHR spec. Perhaps the old XHR previous versions should just  
> be ignored?)

well, they are previous versions. The question about dealing with old  
drafts and how they advertise that they have been replaced is applicable  
here, but orthogonal to what we do with XHR.

cheers

> -AB
>
> On 11/9/11 12:40 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> ACTION-629 from the webapps meeting at TPAC is to check whether any  
>> group has a normative dependency on XMLHttpRequest level 1. Otherwise  
>> we are likely to request the AC to let us drop it from our list of  
>> deliverables. We don't have an editor to finish whatever needs to be  
>> done, and we don't have implementation of the complete spec (people are  
>> not ready to fix the last outstanding bits, and nobody is ready to  
>> remove them).
>>
>> If nobody objects, our plan is to stop work on level 1, and move ahead  
>> only with level 2.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 16:15:56 GMT

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