W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

[xhr-1] XMLHttpRequest Level 1 WD update

From: Jungkee Song <jungkees@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:41:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGwV++fs_b6BnyD_0=G0P8_0SNsHm=aGJgAhEbP3_SBVs7ZoUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Thanks for all the comments. I've updated the WD of XMLHttpRequest Level 1
as such:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/TR/Overview.html

This version (Level 1) reflects all the up-to-date features in WHATWG
version except:
  - The URLSearchParams type in send() method.
  - The additional methods other than append() defined in the interface
FormData.
  (** Note: This version is not planned to be revised in the language of
the WHATWG Fetch spec.)

If you have any concerns about this draft, please leave your comments.

Here's the reference urls to the relevant testing activities:
Test suite: http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/XMLHttpRequest/
Test result: http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/

For the co-editors,
On Jan 28, 2014 2:31 AM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
wrote:

>  This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as
> working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an
> ambient feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems
> unnecessary.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 12:18
> *To:* Marcos Caceres
> *Cc:* public-webapps; Arthur Barstow
> *Subject:* Re: CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: "W3C" XHR, was
> Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review
>
>
> For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there
> has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.
>
> Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a
> spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached
> again.
>
> / Jonas
> On Jan 27, 2014 7:49 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Art,
>> I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring
>> CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they
>> seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcos
>>
>> --
>> Marcos Caceres
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com(mailto:
>> art.barstow@nokia.com)> wrote:
>> > > On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
>> > > > I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it
>> clearer providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
>> > > >
>> > > > The goal of the snapshot version of the spec is clear. It aims to
>> standardize all widely implemented parts of the spec that are compatibly
>> supported across major implementations in a *timely* manner. Hence the
>> number one to-do is to enhance the pass ratio of the test suite [1] by
>> interacting with the implementors.
>> > > >
>> > > > We'd planned to publish LC with the Level 1 spec [2] in a near-term
>> after the last TPAC but the changing publication policy recommends for us
>> to take more conservative approach in publishing LC.
>> > > >
>> > > > That said, it seems necessary for us to publish a WD with [2] for
>> now before we'll get ready with the test results good enough for publishing
>> LC.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any comments would be appreciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the update Jungkee!
>> > >
>> > > I think your plan (to publish a WD now that will replace the 2012 WD
>> and to continue to work toward a LC that is broadly and compatibly
>> implemented) is good. Please let me know when you want me to start a CfC
>> for the WD.
>> >
>> > We editors agreed with requesting a CfC to publish [2] as a WD. I'll
>> request it as soon as I'm ready with a WD-ready version.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jungkee
>> >
>> >
>> > > -Thanks, Art
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > [1] http://jungkees.github.io/XMLHttpRequest-test/
>> > > > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/Overview.html
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jungkee Song
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 04:41:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:21 UTC