Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Glenn Maynard <> 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