Ian Hickson wrote:
...in which case I'd say that (a) the references aren't normative after
all, and (b) the spec itself can't be normative as it is written.
I don't mind calling the references "informative" if that's what it takes.
I'm not sure what practical difference it would make.
You can't make them informative by just saying so. The question is, do I
need material from HTML5 to implement a conforming XHR implementation?
If yes, then XHR can't be published earlier. If no, let's rephrase stuff
so that HTML5 isn't required.
practice, take anything away from the ability to get interoperable
implemenations of the feature described in XHR1.
Really?
What if Apple implements the thing as defined by HTML5-as-of-2008, and
Microsoft as defined in HTML5-as-of-2009?
If it matters, then it's a problem. If it doesn't matter, leave it out
of the XHR spec, as apparently, it's irrelevant for the goal it's trying
to achieve.
The point is that Apple and Microsoft are both going to implement the
thing as required by the Web in 2000, not as defined in HTML5. HTML5 is
describing existing practice on these matters, not defining new material.
Well, in that case pull that stuff out of HTML5 and insert it into the
XHR spec (or move it into something that can be published separately).
BR, Julian
