On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:35:22 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:31:55 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:19:37 +0100, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]>
wrote:
Better yet, dump the "2" version number and just have
/XMLHttpRequest2/ point to /XMLHttpRequest/.
Everything in 1 is in 2, so making a big deal out of this is a
valuable waste of time justifying the decision.
There is no point in having "Level 1" and "Level 2" since there is no
"Level 1"… there is just "XMLHttpRequest" :)
I favor this approach.
If that's the case would be possible to replace xhr 1 spec text with xhr
2 text spec and drop 2?
Any issue in doing that?
I think it is essentially the same thing. If you go to a specific version,
you get that specific version. If you go to /XMLHttpRequest you get the
latest version, which is what is in XHR2.
FWIW I would like to have had the resources to finish this spec and park
it, instead of having the whole lot left unfinished. We don't - both in
terms of editing, and because the implementations won't match it - XHR1
changed from documenting what someone did to documenting what we were all
working towards, and since what we are all working towards (and haven't
achieved yet) is XHR2, merging them seems like the most sensible and
helpful way forward.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
