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

Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:48:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED39F32.2080505@nokia.com>
To: ext John-David Dalton <john.david.dalton@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/27/11 10:51 AM, ext John-David Dalton wrote:
> I've been half following this thread.
> I'm not sure why renaming to XHR is a good idea.
> The DOM spec has levels (Level 2, 3) so I don't see the need to consolidate.
> I like the distinction and it gives devs some marker to follow for
> support in libs/projects.
> If you did drop the XHR levels, which I am not for,

The reality is that we do not have Editor commitments to continue both 
XHR(1) and XHR2. Anne agreed to continue XHR2 and he proposed to reuse 
the XHR shortname (i.e. .../TR/XMLHttpRequest/) for new publications of 
XHR2 and to title it just "XHR". Given these commitments, I think Anne's 
proposal is reasonable.

> then a prominent
> comment block should persist explaining it.

If XHR2 will be redirected to XHR, then I agree some text describing the 
merging of these two specs would be useful. Anne recently added some 
history about the specification of XHR to the XHR2 ED [1] but it doesn't 
explicitly include any information about the merge (e.g. the points in [2]).

-AB

[1] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#specification-history
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1132.html
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 14:48:39 GMT

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