- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:04:27 -0700
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:56:41 -0700, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > I acknowledge that there is a cost in managing what I'm suggesting (and > I'll try to share some of my thoughts on that as well later on); > XMLHttpRequest seems certainly a good use case to look at. My > recollection is that XMLHttpRequest Level 1 bundled a number of > "features" that nobody was in a hurry to implement, which I think killed > it — that doesn't seem inconsistent with what I'm suggesting. > > Is there a subset of XMLHttpRequest Level 1 that would have worked — I > think so, based on fact that every browser out there implements XHR, and > there seems to be pretty good interoperability. How difficult it would > be to design a spec around that subset, I can't tell; but I think that > subset could have become a Recommendation years ago. All the features were implemented long ago. That was never the problem. The problem is edge cases and getting implementations aligned. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 13:05:00 UTC