- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:12:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-webapi@w3.org, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: > > > > I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period > > has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, > > but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later > > on. > > Noted. But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision. > > I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the > test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for > implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR > until HTML5 is more mature. So, I propose we honor this request. > > If I'm missing some particular urgency, I'm happy to reconsider my two > cents. Google supports the editor's opinion that we should not continue delaying publication given that the last call for comments was sent out in April and that the draft originally entered Last Call over a year ago. In particular, it is time to send implementors the message that the spec is ready to be implemented, especially given how XHR1 is effectively a basis for our extensions in XHR2, and how XHR2 has suffered innumerable delays in the past few months. However, that isn't to say that we should ignore the SVGWG's feedback. In practice I don't see how it makes any difference which level the spec is in -- if we receive feedback we should fix the spec either way. It is unlikely that the SVGWG would send feedback that requires substantial changes, since XHR1 is mainly aimed at describing existing behaviour. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 20:13:23 UTC