- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any > >> of the types listed in the following email: > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html > > > > I addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0237.html > > This doesn't contain any arguments for why we wouldn't add any of the > suggested properties in the future. It just gives solutions for what to > do if we do need to add them. However all the suggested solutions create > a more complex platform than if we simply make the second argument an > object now. We wouldn't add timeout to the constructor because there's no benefit to putting that on the constructor. We wouldn't put priority on the constructor because that would be a per-message feature. We wouldn't put encryption in the constructor because that's handled by TLS already. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 20:15:52 UTC