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

Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:11:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8UH5jv+7-7ahOiRwjWCP32yMSTuX3e=G68D=bD83PgkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Charles McCathienevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Robert Hanson <hansonr@stolaf.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>> My only issue is the wording: it doesn't make sense to have normative
>> language saying "you must not use this feature".  This should be a
>> non-normative note warning that this shouldn't be used, not a normative
>> requirement telling people that they must not use it.  (This is a more
>> general problem--the use of normative language to describe authoring
>> conformance criteria is generally confusing.)
>
> This is indeed just that general "problem" that some people have with
> normative requirements on authors.  I've got no problem with
> normatively requiring authors to do (or not do) things; the
> restrictions can then be checked in validators or linting tools, and
> give those tools a place to point to as justification.

Agreed. Making it a conformance requirement not to use sync XHR seems
like a good idea. That way we can also phrase it as "implementations
that want to be compatible with non-conformant websites need to still
support sync requests".

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 21:12:35 UTC

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