- From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0800
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Message-ID: <CAMFeDTVMCy10XHd_OiEyiwACoXuTr=+QknRbuvPGfrJsDcyZJA@mail.gmail.com>
Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote: > [[ removed the chairs list since I think this is now mostly a WebApps > thing ... ]] > > I haven't seen any objections to dropping XHR1 and voices of support to > redirect the XMLHttpRequest2 shortname to XMLHttpRequest. > > I think it would be helpful to some readers if the new XHR spec (i.e. the > spec formerly titled XHR2) included a short note about the consolidation of > the work and after a publication or two, the note could be removed. > > It seems like the main points to include in a new WD of the new XHR spec > are: > > * All work has stopped on the spec that was formerly titled > "XMLHttpRequest" (also referred to as XMLHttpRequest Level 1 and XHR1) and > last published as a Candidate Recommendation on 2 August 2010. > > * WebApps will only work on what was previously titled the "XMLHttpRequest > Level 2" spec (aka XHR2) but note that spec is now titled "XMLHttpRequest" > and uses the XMLHttpRequest shortname (w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest) that was > previously used for XHR1. > > Chaals, All - WDYT? > Sounds good to me. I agree that it would be good to have a sentence somewhere explaining the history. > > (I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about the Previous Version links in > the new XHR spec. Perhaps the old XHR previous versions should just be > ignored?) > > -AB > > > On 11/9/11 12:40 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ACTION-629 from the webapps meeting at TPAC is to check whether any group >> has a normative dependency on XMLHttpRequest level 1. Otherwise we are >> likely to request the AC to let us drop it from our list of deliverables. >> We don't have an editor to finish whatever needs to be done, and we don't >> have implementation of the complete spec (people are not ready to fix the >> last outstanding bits, and nobody is ready to remove them). >> >> If nobody objects, our plan is to stop work on level 1, and move ahead >> only with level 2. >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 01:46:29 UTC