- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:20:56 +0200
- To: <public-webapi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV82814D6DC56EF53112731A4B10@phx.gbl>
- Message-ID: <000301c800df$53c3ff80$0a01a8c0@mikedeskxp>
From: Maciej Stachowiak To: Sunava Dutta Cc: public-webapi@w3.org Subject: Re: Feedback from the IE Team: Web API XHR Draft Hi Sunava, Thanks for sending this feedback. Here are my high-level comments: 1) I am strongly opposed to greatly weakening the implementation conformance requirements. Changing the spec requirements so that existing implementations, even if they vary significantly in behavior, are already conforming. The reason we have specifications is to enable better interoperability. If the specification simply rubber stamps all existing implementations, which differ enough to cause interoperability problems, then we will do nothing to achieve this goal. Agreed. There is a possible alternate goal of documenting for authors what current implementations do and giving them enough information to target the interoperable subset. I too haven't followed the XHR discussion in detail for a while, but I remember that the goal previously was to have the XHR spec reflect current implementation(s?) of XHR, and once that was finalized the next version of the spec would introduce new requirements and improvements. But it turned out in the course of developing the spec that there were enough individually small differences to make such an excercise fruitless. Considering that IE "invented" XHR (apart from the object naming), couldn't the first version of the spec just describe the existing IE behaviour in detail? That would match the previous wg intention and certainly make things easy for the IE team and their backwards compatibility. That would mean the first step in the following plan: 1) Describe original XHR implementation(s) in detail. 2) Iron out kinks and upgrade to new DOM/BOM types without adding functionality. 3) Add functionality (currently some mentioned as "future" or "Not in this Specification"). I guess you have already been through this discussion, dropped it, and instead decided to go for step (2) of the plan above. Though, my interpretation of the IE team's thoughts is that it is a lot of work for them to comply with step (2) and still they have not gained any new functionality, only created backwards compatibility problems. The history of web browsers have been about getting new things done, so I think there could be other vendors also not rushing to fulfill step (2) but instead waiting for (3). So, my point here is: while I think (2) is a great way to formalize current XHR in a future-proof way, I don't expect quick adoption. If this is the goal I think it will have a high risk of failing. If the goal for (2) is to be just an intermediate step (spec-wise) that vendors will not implement on itself, then fine, the step (3) implementations will be far enough into the future so vendors (including MS/IE) will have more time to plan and comply with the new stuff in step (2). We don't have window.document2 to access a DOM2-capable DOM. This is a very good point. B) Microsoft already has an IE-specific legacy interface that could be used for a 100% backwards-compatible version of XHR: new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"). Support for the new XMLHttpRequest() syntax is new to IE7, therefore it is likely that old or even new IE-specific content uses the ActiveXObject syntax. Content that exclusively uses the XMLHttpRequest syntax is more likely to depend on Firefox behavior. Therefore it seems unlikely the compatibility risk with XHR is that severe, indeed, it might be outweighed by the sites that would newly work. Agreed, but it contradicts my guess-work above about adoption time. By the time IE has implemented the referenced DOM/BOM types there may be a large installed base using "old-school" IE7 XMLHttpRequest. Best regards Mike Wilson
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 08:22:02 UTC