Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to
clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for
Consensus to do so.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by December 8 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
-AB
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5
Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:30:54 +0000
Resent-From: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 07:29:37 -0500
From: ext Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>
To: ext Adrian Bateman <adria...@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren
<ann...@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps@ >> public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11/30/11 8:17 PM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section
includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for
Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the following ED (not yet
"pub ready") as the basis:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by December 5 at the latest.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
I missed much of the discussion on this until now because of the holiday over
the weekend in the US. As I said at TPAC, I think continuing only with XHR2
in this exceptional circumstance is the right move provided the group doesn't
make a habit of dropping things because there's a newer shiny version.
With that in mind, I'd like to see the XHR1 document published as a WG Note.
I received a question just this morning asking about the expected behaviour for
an XHR implementation in a pre-CORS environment. While not perfect, the XHR1
document is a reasonably good record of the state of implementations prior to
CORS and I'm reluctant to lose that information or to have to rely on trying to
find a CR publication that doesn't even appear in the history of the new
document.
Secondly, at least within Microsoft and the web developers that I talk to,
the notion of XHR L2 is one that they're familiar with and understood to be
distinct from the original. Could we not continue to publish into TR space
using the "2" suffix?
It appears Adrian is proposing:
.../TR/XMLHttpRequest/ be a WG Note but it's not clear to me what
version of XHR would be used: the 3-Aug-2010 XHR CR, the last ED that
was created, some other version?
.../TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ be used for Anne's merged version and titled
"XMLHttpRequest Level 2".
Anne, All - WDYT?
Adrian - if there is consensus to do something like the above, would you
commit to doing the editorial work on the WG Note?
(FWIW, I think Adrian's proposal is reasonable and it meets the I Can
Live With It Test and if Anne wants the ED to remain version-less,
that's OK, provided L2 is added to versions published in /TR/.)
-AB
