- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The spec can't be more "ready" than all normative > > > > > > > references. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure it can. The concept of "origin" (for instance) is pretty > > > > > > well understood by browser vendors, and HTML5 is getting > > > > > > progressively closer to defining it. XHR1 doesn't need it to > > > > > > be perfectly defined to make use of it. Same with Window, > > > > > > probably even more so in fact. > > > > > > > > > > So why then is the reference to HTML5 needed? > > > > > > > > Wouldn't you just complain that Window and 'origin' were totally > > > > undefined if we used them without referencing something? > > > > > > That wasn't what I was suggesting. > > I would suggest to either copy over what HTML5 currently says, or to > reference something that can be considered a stable reference. What HTML5 says on the matter runs to at least as many pages as the whole of XHR1+XHR2+AC put together. And it's known to be wrong (if it wasn't, HTML5 would be done by now). If we had a stable reference, HTML5 would be using it, and would, again, be done. What's wrong with referencing HTML5? Why can't the spec be more ready than its normative references? We're only really referencing the concept, the details aren't particularly critical to XHR. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 11:50:09 UTC