- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:12:59 -0800
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapi@w3.org" <public-webapi@w3.org>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <zhenbinx@windows.microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, Ahmed Kamel <Ahmed.Kamel@microsoft.com>
Doug Schepers wrote: > Moreover, this is, in fact, what this WG was chartered to do regarding XHR: > "This deliverable should begin by documenting the existing > XMLHttpRequest interface." > > The question becomes, is IE's implementation to be considered canonical, > or is it up to interpretation vis a vis later implementations (FF, > Opera, Safari, et al)? I remember that we started the XHR spec with this goal. However it pretty quickly became clear that we couldn't archive a useful subset of functionality that was compatible between all existing implementations. I think in all cases we've tried to be as compatible with implementations as we could, but in cases where we couldn't we've had to compromise. > Pursuant to that, is there a way to document the existing behavior such > that it does not make existing implementation retroactively > "non-conforming"? Or that does not affect existing content? I don't > know whether or not the existing specification meets these criteria, but > I think that would be the best path forward. I don't think doing that would be very useful as a spec. It would basically just be a brief tutorial of the various functions and their arguments. Something that there are plenty of on the web already. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 01:15:20 UTC