XHR review extension

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

XHR review extension

Erik Dahlström

Hello webapi-wg,

The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the  
XMLHttpRequest LC draft.

Please let us know if that is acceptable,
thanks
/Erik, (ACTION-2055)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Anne van Kesteren-2

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing the  
> XMLHttpRequest LC draft.
>
> Please let us know if that is acceptable,

I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has  
been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that  
shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on.


--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Doug Schepers-3

Hi, Anne-

Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM):

>
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing
>> the XMLHttpRequest LC draft.
>>
>> Please let us know if that is acceptable,
>
> I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period has
> been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but that
> shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on.

Noted.  But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision.

I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the
test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for
implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR
until HTML5 is more mature.  So, I propose we honor this request.

If I'm missing some particular urgency, I'm happy to reconsider my two
cents.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Ian Hickson

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:

> >
> > I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period
> > has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1,
> > but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later
> > on.
>
> Noted.  But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision.
>
> I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the
> test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for
> implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR
> until HTML5 is more mature.  So, I propose we honor this request.
>
> If I'm missing some particular urgency, I'm happy to reconsider my two
> cents.

Google supports the editor's opinion that we should not continue delaying
publication given that the last call for comments was sent out in April
and that the draft originally entered Last Call over a year ago.

In particular, it is time to send implementors the message that the spec
is ready to be implemented, especially given how XHR1 is effectively a
basis for our extensions in XHR2, and how XHR2 has suffered innumerable
delays in the past few months.

However, that isn't to say that we should ignore the SVGWG's feedback. In
practice I don't see how it makes any difference which level the spec is
in -- if we receive feedback we should fix the spec either way. It is
unlikely that the SVGWG would send feedback that requires substantial
changes, since XHR1 is mainly aimed at describing existing behaviour.

Cheers,
--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Maciej Stachowiak
In reply to this post by Doug Schepers-3


On Jun 3, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

>
> Hi, Anne-
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM):
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>>> The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for  
>>> reviewing the XMLHttpRequest LC draft.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if that is acceptable,
>> I think I would rather just move on given how long the review  
>> period has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest  
>> Level 1, but that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing  
>> feedback later on.
>
> Noted.  But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision.
>
> I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two:  
> the test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for  
> implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR  
> until HTML5 is more mature.  So, I propose we honor this request.

Given the length of time this spec has been in development and under  
review, I do not see a pressing need to extend LC.

Regards,
Maciej


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Charles McCathieNevile-2
In reply to this post by Doug Schepers-3

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:12:21 -0300, Doug Schepers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, Anne-
>
> Anne van Kesteren wrote (on 6/3/08 9:44 AM):
>>  On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:34 +0200, Erik Dahlstrom <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>>> The SVG WG would like to request a two week extension for reviewing  
>>> the XMLHttpRequest LC draft.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if that is acceptable,
>>  I think I would rather just move on given how long the review period  
>> has been and how long we've been working on XMLHttpRequest Level 1, but  
>> that shouldn't preclude the SVG WG from providing feedback later on.
>
> Noted.  But this is not an editorial decision, it is a WG decision.

Actually, it is a process issue...

> I don't see the harm in extending the LC period for a week or two: the  
> test suite is not done; there is no urgent release cycle for  
> implementations coming up; and the plan is to simply park this in CR  
> until HTML5 is more mature.  So, I propose we honor this request.

The urgency is based on the fact that people are looking to implement, or  
update implementations, in part because this spec is an important base for  
XHR2. We have an upcoming face to face meeting beginning 1 July, where we  
plan to close any final issues. Microsoft's review has already taken a  
long time, and has been promised within the week.

However I note the request in private for an extension received a week or  
so ago. Therefore, If the SVG group can please try to produce its review  
as fast as possible, we can grant the requested extension to 16 June.

Please note that we will not be giving a further extension without clear  
explanation of the exceptional circumstances that should justify it, and  
we would appreciate every day before then which you can reach. (We would  
also have appreciated the request coming in well before the deadline,  
ideally with some explanation...)

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XHR review extension

Doug Schepers-3

Hi, Chaals-

Charles McCathieNevile wrote (on 6/3/08 4:46 PM):

>
> The urgency is based on the fact that people are looking to implement,
> or update implementations, in part because this spec is an important
> base for XHR2. We have an upcoming face to face meeting beginning 1
> July, where we plan to close any final issues. Microsoft's review has
> already taken a long time, and has been promised within the week.
>
> However I note the request in private for an extension received a week
> or so ago. Therefore, If the SVG group can please try to produce its
> review as fast as possible, we can grant the requested extension to 16
> June.

Thanks, that's a reasonable explanation, and we will work to get our
review to WebAPI as soon as possible (hopefully late this week or early
next).  For the most part, I believe that the current draft looks good,
and we will be glad to be able to reference it in later versions of SVG.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI