W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:00:21 -0600
Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <CE9092CF-CAAD-4360-A1F5-C1A8DB14AB17@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On 28 Nov 2011, at 9:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Hi All,
> As you know, WebApps has two XHR specs in its charter: XHR(1) and XHR2:

Hi Art,

>  XMLHttpRequest (aka XHR1) ; CR published 2-Aug-2010
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
>  XMLHttpRequest Level 2 ; last WD published 16-Aug-2011
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/
> Anne is currently the Editor of both specs and he can no longer commit to XHR1 and no one else in WebApps is willing to be the Editor of XHR1. However, Anne did commit to continue work on XHR2.
> As such, our basic requirements for these two specs are:
> * Use the XHR shortname for what is now the XHR2 spec
> * No longer use the XHR2 shortname
> So, how do we actually go about this? Is there a precedence we can follow or learn from? Please provide your advice/recommendation here ...
> One option is to simply redirect the XHR2 shortname to XHR and add some explanatory text to the new XHR spec that explains the rationale for merging the two specs. Note, however, a few people indicated the simple redirection as problematic but I think the majority of the WG supports it.
> Another option is to update the document in TR/XHR2/ to reflect the group's decision to consolidate the specs into TR/XHR/ and to effectively obsolete the TR/XHR2 spec. Could the editing of TR/XHR2/ done "in place" or would it require re-publishing it (possibly as WG Note?)?

That is my main question: is there any reason for XHR1 to survive? If not, then it seems like whatever is the thing people care about most should be XHR1. 


> Would one of the above be acceptable or should we do something else that considers the Principle of Least Surprise for those interested readers that haven't followed the discussions/rationale on public-webapps?
> -Thanks, AB
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?
> Resent-Date: 	Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:41:31 +0000
> Resent-From: 	<chairs@w3.org>
> Date: 	Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:40:50 +0100
> From: 	ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
> Organization: 	Opera Software
> To: 	chairs.w3.org <chairs@w3.org>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
> 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

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 16:00:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:53 UTC