- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:39:23 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >> ... >> Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so used to having these crappy >> retrospective APIs around that one forgets that things could be done >> in better ways - thankfully decent frameworks have been built around >> them to make these things usable. >> ... > > Maybe that could be a lesson for XHR2? Perhaps, but I haven't been following the XHR2 work - it could already address all this, for all I know:) Nevertheless, if there hasn't already happened, it would be good if people who have worked on making XHR actually usable would contribute to making XHR Level 2 more aligned with how XHR is used on the ground - thinking Prototype, Dojo, JQuery, etc. Seems a bit ridiculous that everyone is building effectively the same wrappers around XHR to make it usable when all this could be done much faster if it was implemented natively in the browser. Apart from having a whinge, I don't have a better proposal for how this could be done - I haven't thought about it, and there are people much more qualified then me to do that. I can only hope that those working on the spec have looked at how the frameworks do "ajax" and if lessons can be taken and specified out of that... or that framework creators contribute back to the standardization process from the wild. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Sunday, 20 December 2009 22:40:43 UTC