- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 11:56:45 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it >> turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of >> the browsers works as specified. > > We decided long ago (and subsequently reaffirmed) that instead of > leaving the spec so vague that all existing implementations are > automatically compliant, we would define a shared interoperable behavior > so that implementations can converge. It should not be news to anyone > that implementations are not automatically 100% compliant. > ... I'm totally happy not to leave things vague. But what IMHO happens all over again is that strange choices in the design are defended with the statement "this is what the vendors do, or want to do", and when we check it, that turns out to be incorrect. The totally broken API with respect to setting (or adding) header values is the best example for that. If we're specifying something vendors can converge on, why not specify something *good*? Oh yes, the answer to that is "XHR2". I guess I'm confused about both the goals and the planned timelines for these specs. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 09:57:54 UTC