- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:11:38 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Charles McCathienevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Robert Hanson <hansonr@stolaf.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: >> My only issue is the wording: it doesn't make sense to have normative >> language saying "you must not use this feature". This should be a >> non-normative note warning that this shouldn't be used, not a normative >> requirement telling people that they must not use it. (This is a more >> general problem--the use of normative language to describe authoring >> conformance criteria is generally confusing.) > > This is indeed just that general "problem" that some people have with > normative requirements on authors. I've got no problem with > normatively requiring authors to do (or not do) things; the > restrictions can then be checked in validators or linting tools, and > give those tools a place to point to as justification. Agreed. Making it a conformance requirement not to use sync XHR seems like a good idea. That way we can also phrase it as "implementations that want to be compatible with non-conformant websites need to still support sync requests". / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 21:12:35 UTC