Hi,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20070618/
was published yesterday taking into account the Last Call feedback. Given
that there was feedback that required some substansive changed we decided
to publish an intermediate Working Draft that people can check. If all
goes well
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:45:16 +0200, Rotan Hanrahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the conformance section [1] of the XMLHttpRequest Object WD, you
mention:
The algorithms in this specification are generally written with more
concern for clarity than efficiency.
This suggests that more
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:11:25 +0200, Rotan Hanrahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am concerned by subtle conflicts in the normative text. For example,
you read the following:
The value of the text response entity body MUST be determined by
running the following algorithm:
The use of MUST
The necessary flexibility might be achieved if the text read: The value of the
text response entity body MAY be determined by running the following
illustrative algorithm:.
My point is that the algorithms are illustrative, devised specifically for
clarity (as is pointed out in the document),
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:57:11 +0200, Rotan Hanrahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The necessary flexibility might be achieved if the text read: The value
of the text response entity body MAY be determined by running the
following illustrative algorithm:.
There is no other way to determine it.
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
They are certainly not illustrative. They are the only way to find out
what you need to implement. You MUST follow the algorithm. Not copy it
step for step.
If you want to sort something, there are many different algorithms to do
that, you could use, for example,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:24:21 +0200, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
My point is that the algorithms are illustrative, devised specifically
for clarity (as is pointed out in the document), yet the text also
demands that you MUST use the algorithms as outlined.
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
How about:
Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may
be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent.
The problem is not with the conformance section, it is with the specific
requirements regarding algorithm use,
Despite my earlier indication to refrain from further comment, I return because
I observe some discussion is taking place.
I propose that the text that introduces an algorithm in the normative section
be phrased something like the following (based on an idea suggested in Anne's
most recent
On Jun 19, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
Despite my earlier indication to refrain from further comment, I
return because I observe some discussion is taking place.
I propose that the text that introduces an algorithm in the
normative section be phrased something like the
10 matches
Mail list logo
