W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

From: Robert Hanson <hansonr@stolaf.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:25:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF_YUvVpYhXdSvNySDd8uYwAx4zp8=LSe7Ec5ajJ1uy2yQUMjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
That I think what is unclear from the writing of the warning are two
things:

1) It *appears *to be part of the spec. (The parts before say they are
non-normative, but this section does not.) And it uses the word "must" --
implying that it is a requirement, not a recommendation.

2) Perhaps it is just unclear to me what "experiment" means, but I read
that as saying that Mozilla, tomorrow, is encouraged to kill all sites that
utilize async=false and not wait until the  standard is adopted.

I have a feeling I am misunderstanding what a "developer tool" is as
opposed to standard web page operation. Could you please clarify? Does it
mean that if I have the debugger running, my site will fail, but if it is
not running, it will work?

Bob Hanson

Robert, Anne, All, WDYT?






On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 9/2/14 9:10 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry. As with showModalDialog() we would really like to make this
>>>> >  feature disappear. I realize this makes some forms of code generation
>>>> >  harder, but hopefully you can find a way around that in time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should set some sense of expectation about*when*  it won't
>>> work. Different parts of the Web move on different timelines.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>
> Given this, it seems like the current Note should indeed be updated to
> reflect this reality:
>
> [[
> <http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#the-open()-method>
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/default/xhr-1/
> Overview.html#the-open()-method>
>
> Warning: Developers must not pass false for the async argument when the
> JavaScript global environment is a document environment as it has
> detrimental effects to the end user's experience. User agents are strongly
> encouraged to warn about such usage in developer tools and may experiment
> with throwing an "InvalidAccessError" exception when it occurs so the
> feature can eventually be removed from the platform.
> ]]
>
> Is there a good (enuf) precedence on the deprecation warning that can be
> reuse? If not, how about something like:
>
> [[
> Warning: synchronous XHR is in the process of being deprecated i.e. it
> will eventually be  removed from the Web platform. As such, developers must
> not pass false for the async argument when the JavaScript global
> environment is a document environment as it has detrimental effects to the
> end user's experience. User agents are strongly encouraged to warn about
> such usage in developer tools and the tool may experiment with throwing an
> "InvalidAccessError" exception.
> ]]
>
> Robert, Anne, All, WDYT?
>
> -AB
>
>
>


-- 
Robert M. Hanson
Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
Chair, Department of Chemistry
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr


If nature does not answer first what we want,
it is better to take what answer we get.

-- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 12:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC