Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-24 Thread Arthur Barstow
[ Apologies for top posting ] I just added a 11:30-12:00 time slot on Monday October 27 for XHR: I believe Jungkee will be at the meeting so, Hallvord and Julian please join via the phone bridge and/or IRC if you ca

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-20 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 10/19/14 10:02 PM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: Arthur Barstow , 2014-10-19 09:59 -0400: (If someone can show me a PR and/or REC that includes a normative reference to a WHATWG spec, please let me know.) If it's your goal to ensure that we actually do never have a PR or REC with a normative ref

Re: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-20 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM, wrote: > While it seems bleeding edge XHR specs will be in flux for some time (e.g. if > Anne takes the "spec of record" and dismembers it into fetch, I presume he > won't get that done within a couple of months...) To be clear, XMLHttpRequest is already layer

Re: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-20 Thread chaals
le to do the publishing work fairly fast. Are the existing editors in a position to do so? cheers Chaals > -- > Jungkee > > --- Original Message --- > Sender : Domenic Denicola > Date   : 2014-10-20 11:44 (GMT+09:00) > Title  : RE: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W

Re: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Domenic Denicola , 2014-10-20 02:44 +: > I just remembered another similar situation that occurred recently, and > in my opinion was handled perfectly: > > When it became clear that the WHATWG DOM Parsing and Serialization > Standard was not being actively worked on, whereas the W3C version w

Re: RE: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread 송정기
HTML spec, etc. -- Jungkee --- Original Message --- Sender : Domenic Denicola Date : 2014-10-20 11:44 (GMT+09:00) Title : RE: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot I just remembered another similar situation that occurred recently, and in my opinion was handled perfec

RE: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Domenic Denicola
er 17, 2014 20:19 To: public-webapps Subject: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot Apologies in advance that this thread will deal with something that's more in the realm of politics. First, I'm writing as one of the W3C-appointed "editors" of the &qu

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Michael[tm] Smith
Arthur Barstow , 2014-10-19 09:59 -0400: ... > >c) Ship a TR based on the newest WHATWG version, reference WHATWG's Fetch > >spec throughout. > > The staff does indeed permit normative references to WHATWG specs in > WD and CR publications so that wouldn't be an issue for those types > of snapsho

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > Much of the refactoring work seems to have been just that - refactoring, more > about pulling descriptions of some functionality into another document to > make it more general and usable from other contexts, than about making > cha

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Hallvord R. M. Steen
>> However, the WHATWG version is now quite heavily refactored to be XHR+Fetch. >> It's no longer clear to me whether pushing forward to ship XHR2 "stand-alone" >> is the right thing to do.. > (For those not familiar with > WebApps' XHR TR publication history, the latest snapshots are: Level1 >

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-19 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 10/17/14 8:19 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: I'd appreciate if those who consider responding to this thread could be to-the-point and avoid the ideological swordmanship as much as possible. I would appreciate that too (and I will endeavor to moderate replies accordingly.) However, the

Re: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-18 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 10/17/14, 8:19 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: a) Ship a TR based on the spec just *before* the big Fetch refactoring. If we want to publish something at all, I think this is the most reasonable option, frankly. I have no strong opinions on whether this is done REC-track or as a Note, I t

Re: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-18 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > No need to make this a "vs."; we're all friends here :). > > FWIW previous specs which have needed to become abandoned because they were > superceded by another spec have been re-published as NOTEs pointing to the > source material. That

RE: Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-17 Thread Domenic Denicola
ozilla.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 20:19 To: public-webapps Subject: [xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot Apologies in advance that this thread will deal with something that's more in the realm of politics. First, I'm writing as one of the W3C-appointed "ed

[xhr] Questions on the future of the XHR spec, W3C snapshot

2014-10-17 Thread Hallvord R. M. Steen
Apologies in advance that this thread will deal with something that's more in the realm of politics. First, I'm writing as one of the W3C-appointed "editors" of the "snapshot" the WebApps WG presumably would like to release as the XMLHttpRequest recommendation, but I'm not speaking on behalf of