On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:46:34 +0100, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]>
wrote:
Last year we agreed to stop work on the "baseline" XHR spec because no
one was willing to work on that version of the spec. Since then, the new
XHR Editors agreed to work on a baseline version as well as to continue
to work on the `bleeding edge` version.
One goal of the baseline version is to specify features that are widely
implemented and deployed today. As such, it _should_ be relatively
straight forward to move this version to LC and then to CR->PR->REC and
thus "finalize" the IP commitments by WebApps' members. (There are no
firm IP commitments for XHR until a REC is published.)
My proposal is to use the "XMLHttpRequest1" shortname for the baseline
version, the same shortname as the XHR WG Note published 17 January 2012
[XHR-Note]. Thus, the first TR publication of the new baseline spec
would "replace" the WG Note (although the dated version of the WG Note
[XHR-Note-Dated] will of course be untouched).
I don't feel strongly about the title of the baseline version. Some
options: "XMLHttpRequest Baseline", "XMLHttpRequest Level {0,1}" and I
could live with something like "XMLHttpRequest: The Attorney's Edition
[v{0,1}]".
Comments?
Much as I love it, I don't think "The attorney's edition" is a helpful
addition to the title. Besides, I think it is valuable for people for
reasons other than just fulfilling the patent policy requirements.
Since we expect this to basically be the stuff in what used to be called
XMLHttpRequest level 1 that is actually widely implemented (ie really
standard, not just the things we think should be), I think XMLHttpRequest
level 1 makes a pretty sensible real name.
cheers
Chaals
-Art and Chaals
[XHR-Note] <http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest1/>
[XHR-Note-Dated]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-XMLHttpRequest1-20120117/>
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
[email protected] Find more at http://yandex.com
