On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:38:04 +0200, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
There have been a lot of messages about referencing HTML5 and how we
can mitigate that. I don't think that copying the text from HTML5 is an
option. The Window specification is fairly complex and especially the
interaction with browsing contexts is a complex bit of HTML5 that I
don't feel confident taking over. The same goes for defining the origin
policy.
If someone were to volunteer to define these outside of HTML5 we could
refer to that specification but so far that has not happened.
So we have two reasonable options I think:
1) Keep the references intact.
2) Make various things implementation defined and hint with
non-normative notes that this will be defined by HTML5 in the future.
Option two would be feasible but implementors have actually requested
that we define in detail how URIs are resolved and what exactly the
same-origin policy implies for XMLHttpRequest. I don't think it's worth
dropping all that work on the floor.
If you decide to keep the references, I don't see how this document can
advance.
...beond CR. I don't see any problem with XHR1 hanging around in CR while
the references get finished.
Focussing on how to get a spec to REC as early as possible misses the
point. The point is getting interoperable implementations, and copying
over draft-level spec text or making things non-normative or undefined is
not helping with that.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
