- From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:44:21 +0100
- To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5458595840394953859@unknownmsgid>
On Mar 29, 2014, at 21:25, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote: Hi all, http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#specification-history In the very beginning of the history part, we read "The XMLHttpRequest <http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest>object was initially defined as part of the WHATWG's HTML effort. (Long after Microsoft shipped an implementation.) " To me this is ambiguous: It could either mean 1. Long after Microsoft had shipped a related implementation, the XMLHttpRequest <http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest> object was defined as part of the WHATWG's HTML effort or 2. The XMLHttpRequest<http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest>object was initially defined as part of the WHATWG's HTML effort. (Much later, Microsoft shipped an implementation.) I suspect that 2, rather than 1 is meant, but given that Microsoft's ActiveX extensions allowed something functionally similar, the earlier interpretation might be found by readers. Nope, 1 is meant. You're missing a comma for the second meaning: 1. Long after Microsoft shipped an implementation. 2. Long after, Microsoft shipped an implementation. The first sentence is missing a verb, which is probably what tripped you up. The following should be unambiguous: "The XMLHttpRequest <http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest> object was initially defined as part of the WHATWG's HTML effort, long after Microsoft shipped an implementation." Best, --tobie
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 20:44:52 UTC