Mike Wilson wrote:
But it turned out in the course of developing the spec that there
were enough individually small differences to make such an excercise
fruitless.
Considering that IE "invented" XHR (apart from the object
naming), couldn't the first version of the spec just describe the
existing IE behaviour in detail? That would match the previous wg
intention and certainly make things easy for the IE team and their
backwards compatibility. That would mean the first step in the following
plan:
1) Describe original XHR implementation(s) in detail.
2) Iron out kinks and upgrade to new DOM/BOM types without adding
functionality.
3) Add functionality (currently some mentioned as "future" or "Not in
this Specification").
I would strongly argue that w3c is in the business of creating the best
specification we can based on technical grounds, not to thank individual
vendors for their great job of inventing new technologies.
What we should do is build the best spec we can to move the web forward.
I'd be very interested to hear arguments for changes to the spec to do
that.
/ Jonas
