On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:15:10 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
well, what I was asking is to make sure that if I go to xhr1 I actually
find 2
Anyway I think this is what marcos and anne were saying, so fine.
/g
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
--
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
