Mike Wilson wrote:
So my suggestion is to either do less, ie concentrating on the core
part of XHR and not mandating that not-so-important parts be in
place, so it will be less work to implement.
Or, add more functionality to the spec so the new XHR will be
"sexier" and will therefore give a "better bang for the buck"
invested.
I think what we have *is* the core, not sure what less we could do that
wouldn't turn the spec into a simple tutorial rather than a specification.
We're also adding more functionality, XHR2 is in the works.
/ Jonas
