On 30 Nov 2011, at 6:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 11/28/11 3:32 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: >> On 28 Nov 2011, at 2:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/11 11:00 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: >>>> On 28 Nov 2011, at 9:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> As you know, WebApps has two XHR specs in its charter: XHR(1) and XHR2: >>>> Hi Art, >>>> >>>>> XMLHttpRequest (aka XHR1) ; CR published 2-Aug-2010 >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ >>>>> >>>>> XMLHttpRequest Level 2 ; last WD published 16-Aug-2011 >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ >>>>> >>>>> Anne is currently the Editor of both specs and he can no longer commit to >>>>> XHR1 and no one else in WebApps is willing to be the Editor of XHR1. >>>>> However, Anne did commit to continue work on XHR2. >>>>> >>>>> As such, our basic requirements for these two specs are: >>>>> >>>>> * Use the XHR shortname for what is now the XHR2 spec >>>>> * No longer use the XHR2 shortname >>>>> >>>>> So, how do we actually go about this? Is there a precedence we can follow >>>>> or learn from? Please provide your advice/recommendation here ... >>>>> >>>>> One option is to simply redirect the XHR2 shortname to XHR and add some >>>>> explanatory text to the new XHR spec that explains the rationale for >>>>> merging the two specs. Note, however, a few people indicated the simple >>>>> redirection as problematic but I think the majority of the WG supports it. >>>>> >>>>> Another option is to update the document in TR/XHR2/ to reflect the >>>>> group's decision to consolidate the specs into TR/XHR/ and to effectively >>>>> obsolete the TR/XHR2 spec. Could the editing of TR/XHR2/ done "in place" >>>>> or would it require re-publishing it (possibly as WG Note?)? >>>> That is my main question: is there any reason for XHR1 to survive? If not, >>>> then it seems like whatever is the thing people care about most should be >>>> XHR1. >>> The contents of the document at TR/XHR/ (aka XHR1) will not survive. The WG >>> wants to replace the contents of TR/XHR/ with the contents of TR/XHR2/ >>> (well actually, the latest ED of XHR2) and we will never again publish >>> anything at TR/XHR2/. >> >> Could you move what you want to XHR and call it "XMLHttpRequest 1"? > > I think Anne does not want to include a version/level number in the title.
Fine by me. > >> You could (for now) end the XHR2 line with 1-page stub document that says >> "We've moved! But we're keeping this stub document in the case we really do >> want to publish an XHR2 someday." > > Yes, we could do something like that. > > It seems like this boils down to: is the Team (Pub, Comm and WebApps) OK with > going the redirect option? If not, what is the Team's recommendation? Since the group is essentially merging two docs into one, I don't see how to avoid a redirect. +1 to using "version 1" (even if the 1 is silent) instead of "version 2" for the merged result. It would be helpful to include in the status section a short statement about the merger. Ian > > -AB > > > -- Ian Jacobs ([email protected]) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
