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

Re: XMLHttpRequest Level 1- specification history

From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:44:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5458595840394953859@unknownmsgid>
To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mar 29, 2014, at 21:25, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:

Hi all,


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


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."


Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 20:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:22 UTC