Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
>> "XML" is also a misnomer. And "Http" is confusing as well, since these
>> requests can (and should) generally be carried over https. At least we agree
>> on "Request" ;).
> I agree, but (a) that ship has sailed; and (b) dropping those from the name
> only in the anonymous/uniform/whatever version would probably be more
> confusing than helpful, at least if the API ends up being roughly similar.
> XMLHttpRequest has brand value, and it's worth building on author awareness
> even if the X and the H are more historical than meaningful at this point.

Count me as one web developer who won't miss the annoying and
inaccurate "XH" from any future "R"s.  I think that dropping them now
won't be very confusing (the Request part has always been the
meaningful one for me), and it then opens the door for future types of
Requests to just share in the Request name, not the full baggage-laden
XHR name.

In other words, assuming confusion from a sample of one doesn't seem
too valid.  Establishing precedent with two, though, makes it
significantly more difficult to ever do anything better in the future.
 We're stuck with XHR as the name for vanilla XHR stuff.  We don't
need to perpetuate its inaccuracies and capitalization inconsistencies
into future types of Requests.


Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 18:38:26 UTC