- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 20:34:46 +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: > > > > But we don't have to limit ourselves to that definition. We could just > > as easily say that XHR1's functionality is as defined in XHR1, and > > that it uses terms and features that are currently underdefined. It > > wouldn't, in > > ...in which case I'd say that (a) the references aren't normative after > all, and (b) the spec itself can't be normative as it is written. I don't mind calling the references "informative" if that's what it takes. I'm not sure what practical difference it would make. > > practice, take anything away from the ability to get interoperable > > implemenations of the feature described in XHR1. > > Really? > > What if Apple implements the thing as defined by HTML5-as-of-2008, and > Microsoft as defined in HTML5-as-of-2009? > > If it matters, then it's a problem. If it doesn't matter, leave it out > of the XHR spec, as apparently, it's irrelevant for the goal it's trying > to achieve. The point is that Apple and Microsoft are both going to implement the thing as required by the Web in 2000, not as defined in HTML5. HTML5 is describing existing practice on these matters, not defining new material. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 20:35:28 UTC