Hi Hallvord,
I don't have a specific opinion on where what should be done, speaking
personally I certainly don't have an issue with XHR being at the WHATWG,
but just some notes below in case it helps.
On 06/08/2015 14:07 , Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
And that is mostly my fault. I intended to keep the W3C fork up to date
(at least up to a point), but at some point I attempted to simply apply
Git patches from Anne's edits to the WHATWG version, and it turned out
Git had problems applying them automatically for whatever reason -
apparently the versions were already so distinct that it wasn't
possible.
Yes, once differences grow too much, even if you make use of
cherry-picking, at some point there isn't much that git (or diff/patch)
can do to merge two documents that are too far apart.
Since then I haven't found time for doing the manual
cut-and-paste work required, and I therefore think it's probably better
to follow Anne's advice and drop the W3C version entirely in favour of
the WHATWG version. I still like the idea of having a "stable" spec
documenting the interoperable behaviour of XHR by a given point in time
- but I haven't been able to prioritise it and neither, apparently, have
the other two editors.
Depending on how involved the differences between L1 and the LS are, one
option is to do this with code. If L1 is a subset and the subsetting
doesn't require editing things mid-sentence (e.g. just dropping sections
and a few odds and ends) then you can simply keep pulling the LS and
apply code that filters out what you don't want.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
