On 30 Nov 2011, at 8:13 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 11/30/11 8:59 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: >> On 30 Nov 2011, at 6:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/11 3:32 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: >>>> On 28 Nov 2011, at 2:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/28/11 11:00 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: >>>>>> On 28 Nov 2011, at 9:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you know, WebApps has two XHR specs in its charter: XHR(1) and XHR2: >>>>>> Hi Art, >>>>>> >>>>>>> XMLHttpRequest (aka XHR1) ; CR published 2-Aug-2010 >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> XMLHttpRequest Level 2 ; last WD published 16-Aug-2011 >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne is currently the Editor of both specs and he can no longer commit >>>>>>> to XHR1 and no one else in WebApps is willing to be the Editor of XHR1. >>>>>>> However, Anne did commit to continue work on XHR2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As such, our basic requirements for these two specs are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Use the XHR shortname for what is now the XHR2 spec >>>>>>> * No longer use the XHR2 shortname >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, how do we actually go about this? Is there a precedence we can >>>>>>> follow or learn from? Please provide your advice/recommendation here ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One option is to simply redirect the XHR2 shortname to XHR and add some >>>>>>> explanatory text to the new XHR spec that explains the rationale for >>>>>>> merging the two specs. Note, however, a few people indicated the simple >>>>>>> redirection as problematic but I think the majority of the WG supports >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another option is to update the document in TR/XHR2/ to reflect the >>>>>>> group's decision to consolidate the specs into TR/XHR/ and to >>>>>>> effectively obsolete the TR/XHR2 spec. Could the editing of TR/XHR2/ >>>>>>> done "in place" or would it require re-publishing it (possibly as WG >>>>>>> Note?)? >>>>>> That is my main question: is there any reason for XHR1 to survive? If >>>>>> not, then it seems like whatever is the thing people care about most >>>>>> should be XHR1. >>>>> The contents of the document at TR/XHR/ (aka XHR1) will not survive. The >>>>> WG wants to replace the contents of TR/XHR/ with the contents of TR/XHR2/ >>>>> (well actually, the latest ED of XHR2) and we will never again publish >>>>> anything at TR/XHR2/. >>>> Could you move what you want to XHR and call it "XMLHttpRequest 1"? >>> I think Anne does not want to include a version/level number in the title. >> Fine by me. >> >>>> You could (for now) end the XHR2 line with 1-page stub document that says >>>> "We've moved! But we're keeping this stub document in the case we really >>>> do want to publish an XHR2 someday." >>> Yes, we could do something like that. >>> >>> It seems like this boils down to: is the Team (Pub, Comm and WebApps) OK >>> with going the redirect option? If not, what is the Team's recommendation? >> Since the group is essentially merging two docs into one, I don't see how to >> avoid a redirect. > > OK, so what needs to be done to make that redirect happen (now)?
Does it happen now or when there is a publication? I had assumed it was all going to happen as a single act: * Merge with explanation in status * Redirect > >> +1 to using "version 1" (even if the 1 is silent) instead of "version 2" for >> the merged result. >> >> It would be helpful to include in the status section a short statement about >> the merger. > > Anne already included information about the merge in the ED that will be used > as the basis for TR/XMLHttpRequest/: > > [1] > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#specification-history > > FYI, earlier today I started a CfC to publish a new WD of [1] and I > anticipate submitting a PubReq for that WD on December 6. Can we do the redirect on 6 Dec? Ian > > -Thanks, AB > > > -- Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
