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

CfC: publish WG Note of the "old" XHR(1); deadline December 8

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:25:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED7D4AC.9000100@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to 
clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for 
Consensus to do so.

If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send 
them to public-webapps by December 8 at the latest.

As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged 
and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.

-AB

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5
Resent-Date: 	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:30:54 +0000
Resent-From: 	<public-webapps@w3.org>
Date: 	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 07:29:37 -0500
From: 	ext Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
To: 	ext Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren 
<annevk@opera.com>
CC: 	public-webapps@ >> public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>



On 11/30/11 8:17 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
>  On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>  Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section
>>  includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for
>>  Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the following ED (not yet
>>  "pub ready") as the basis:
>>
>>      http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>>
>>  Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>>  WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>>
>>  If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
>>  them to public-webapps by December 5 at the latest.
>>
>>  As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
>>  and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
>  I missed much of the discussion on this until now because of the holiday over
>  the weekend in the US. As I said at TPAC, I think continuing only with XHR2
>  in this exceptional circumstance is the right move provided the group doesn't
>  make a habit of dropping things because there's a newer shiny version.
>
>  With that in mind, I'd like to see the XHR1 document published as a WG Note.
>  I received a question just this morning asking about the expected behaviour for
>  an XHR implementation in a pre-CORS environment. While not perfect, the XHR1
>  document is a reasonably good record of the state of implementations prior to
>  CORS and I'm reluctant to lose that information or to have to rely on trying to
>  find a CR publication that doesn't even appear in the history of the new
>  document.
>
>  Secondly, at least within Microsoft and the web developers that I talk to,
>  the notion of XHR L2 is one that they're familiar with and understood to be
>  distinct from the original. Could we not continue to publish into TR space
>  using the "2" suffix?

It appears Adrian is proposing:

  .../TR/XMLHttpRequest/  be a WG Note but it's not clear to me what
version of XHR would be used: the 3-Aug-2010 XHR CR, the last ED that
was created, some other version?

  .../TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ be used for Anne's merged version and titled
"XMLHttpRequest Level 2".

Anne, All - WDYT?

Adrian - if there is consensus to do something like the above, would you
commit to doing the editorial work on the WG Note?

(FWIW, I think Adrian's proposal is reasonable and it meets the I Can
Live With It Test and if Anne wants the ED to remain version-less,
that's OK, provided L2 is added to versions published in /TR/.)

-AB
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 19:25:54 GMT

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