- From: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:34:27 +0200
- To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > What we should do is build the best spec we can to move the > web forward. Yes, I most definitively agree that should be the main goal. What differs may be our interpretation of how to best get there. IE has the greatest market share so to move the web forward it is important to get them on the wagon. If changes can be done to the spec that eases that, and doesn't harm everybody else, then I think they are probably a Good Thing. > I'd be very interested to hear arguments for changes to the > spec to do that. What my previous mail really boils down to is "either do less, or more". The XHR spec isn't "sexy" as it doesn't add new functionality (for the record note that I don't think a spec needs to be sexy), but still introduces quite a lot of new formal stuff for XHR. So, the IE team (I'm just guessing here) are faced with a spec that is not sexy (no new killer feature to offer developers) but with a lot of work involved implementing considering references to other unimplemented specs. So my suggestion is to either do less, ie concentrating on the core part of XHR and not mandating that not-so-important parts be in place, so it will be less work to implement. Or, add more functionality to the spec so the new XHR will be "sexier" and will therefore give a "better bang for the buck" invested. Best regards Mike
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 09:35:28 UTC