Chair review of the issue-195 form-http-req change proposals

'Enhance http request generation from forms'

Change Proposals:

* Enhance:
* Defer:

The Defer proposal has complete details; its rationale actually serves 
as the basis for much of this review.

Lack of provided use cases won't prevent the issue from going to survey, 
but will likely negatively affect the chances of the Enhance proposal 
being selected.  As such, the Enhance proposal would benefit by 
addressing this item.

Similarly, lack of UA implementor interest won't prevent the issue from 
going to survey.  It may not even prevent it from being selected.  But 
it could very well result in the feature being proposed being pulled 
later in the cycle as HTML5 proceeds to Recommendation status. 
Addressing this early will prevent needless work.

The Enhance proposal does not include rationale for each of the separate 
changes proposed. Some rationale is provided addressing "_logout_" and 
"async", but not most of the other proposed changes. Even the "_logout_" 
and "async" rationale do not contain specific supporting evidence.

Examples of unsupported statements:

- The second half of "The ability to control the HTTP authentication 
cache is currently unavailable in browsers through any means and 
represents an unacceptable security hole in the adoption of HTTP 

- "Combined with the ability for form requests to target different 
browsing contexts this leads to innovation in the development of rich 
'webapp' style HTML documents and additional enablement of frames for 
such purposes. "

Not addressing this comment will negatively affect the chances of the 
Enhance proposal being adopted.

The complexity of change issue is something that needs to be resolved 
prior to survey.  The Enhance proposal needs to identify a set of edit 
instructions, specific enough that they can be applied without 
ambiguity, and the Defer proposal needs to identify specific problems 
that would need to be addressed.

At the present time, the Enhance proposal reads more like a list of 
items to be worked rather than as a specific set of edit instructions, 
as such this needs to be corrected before we allow this issue to proceed 
to survey.

Until this is corrected, no changes to the Defer proposal are required.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 11:04:03 UTC