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

Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFeDTVMCy10XHd_OiEyiwACoXuTr=+QknRbuvPGfrJsDcyZJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325


On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:54 AM, 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?
>

Sounds good to me. I agree that it would be good to have a sentence
somewhere explaining the history.


>
> (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?)
>
> -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
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 01:46:29 GMT

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