XHR review extension
Hello webapi-wg, The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft. Please let us know if that is acceptable, thanks /Erik, (ACTION-2055)
Re: XHR review extension
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft. Please let us know if that is acceptable, I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: XHR review extension
Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM): On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft. Please let us know if that is acceptable, I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on. Noted. But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision. I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR until HTML5 is more mature. So, I propose we honor this request. If I'm missing some particular urgency, I'm happy to reconsider my two cents. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: XHR review extension
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on. Noted. But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision. I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR until HTML5 is more mature. So, I propose we honor this request. If I'm missing some particular urgency, I'm happy to reconsider my two cents. Google supports the editor's opinion that we should not continue delaying publication given that the last call for comments was sent out in April and that the draft originally entered Last Call over a year ago. In particular, it is time to send implementors the message that the spec is ready to be implemented, especially given how XHR1 is effectively a basis for our extensions in XHR2, and how XHR2 has suffered innumerable delays in the past few months. However, that isn't to say that we should ignore the SVGWG's feedback. In practice I don't see how it makes any difference which level the spec is in -- if we receive feedback we should fix the spec either way. It is unlikely that the SVGWG would send feedback that requires substantial changes, since XHR1 is mainly aimed at describing existing behaviour. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: XHR review extension
On Jun 3, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM): On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft. Please let us know if that is acceptable, I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on. Noted. But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision. I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR until HTML5 is more mature. So, I propose we honor this request. Given the length of time this spec has been in development and under review, I do not see a pressing need to extend LC. Regards, Maciej
Re: XHR review extension
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:12:21 -0300, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anne- Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM): On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft. Please let us know if that is acceptable, I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on. Noted. But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision. Actually, it is a process issue... I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR until HTML5 is more mature. So, I propose we honor this request. The urgency is based on the fact that people are looking to implement, or update implementations, in part because this spec is an important base for XHR2. We have an upcoming face to face meeting beginning 1 July, where we plan to close any final issues. Microsoft's review has already taken a long time, and has been promised within the week. However I note the request in private for an extension received a week or so ago. Therefore, If the SVG group can please try to produce its review as fast as possible, we can grant the requested extension to 16 June. Please note that we will not be giving a further extension without clear explanation of the exceptional circumstances that should justify it, and we would appreciate every day before then which you can reach. (We would also have appreciated the request coming in well before the deadline, ideally with some explanation...) cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Re: XHR review extension
Hi, Chaals- Charles McCathieNevile wrote (on 6/3/08 4:46 PM): The urgency is based on the fact that people are looking to implement, or update implementations, in part because this spec is an important base for XHR2. We have an upcoming face to face meeting beginning 1 July, where we plan to close any final issues. Microsoft's review has already taken a long time, and has been promised within the week. However I note the request in private for an extension received a week or so ago. Therefore, If the SVG group can please try to produce its review as fast as possible, we can grant the requested extension to 16 June. Thanks, that's a reasonable explanation, and we will work to get our review to WebAPI as soon as possible (hopefully late this week or early next). For the most part, I believe that the current draft looks good, and we will be glad to be able to reference it in later versions of SVG. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
