- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:22:46 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:38:04 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> There have been a lot of messages about referencing HTML5 and how we >> can mitigate that. I don't think that copying the text from HTML5 is an >> option. The Window specification is fairly complex and especially the >> interaction with browsing contexts is a complex bit of HTML5 that I >> don't feel confident taking over. The same goes for defining the origin >> policy. >> If someone were to volunteer to define these outside of HTML5 we could >> refer to that specification but so far that has not happened. >> So we have two reasonable options I think: >> 1) Keep the references intact. >> 2) Make various things implementation defined and hint with >> non-normative notes that this will be defined by HTML5 in the future. >> Option two would be feasible but implementors have actually requested >> that we define in detail how URIs are resolved and what exactly the >> same-origin policy implies for XMLHttpRequest. I don't think it's worth >> dropping all that work on the floor. > > If you decide to keep the references, I don't see how this document can > advance. ...beond CR. I don't see any problem with XHR1 hanging around in CR while the references get finished. Focussing on how to get a spec to REC as early as possible misses the point. The point is getting interoperable implementations, and copying over draft-level spec text or making things non-normative or undefined is not helping with that. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 12:23:45 UTC