Details, details
October 30th, 2007
Two pieces of Microsoft news this week.
Microsoft objected to the current W3C XMLHttpRequest specification on the grounds that it is too detailed (!). They waited one year to make objections.
The second is that Douglas Crockford of Yahoo! and Microsoft are collaborating on some sort of JS work. I’m not sure if there’s an implementation. I wish I had more to report, but all the work is being done in secret. I guess we’re supposed to wait a year, or something.
In both cases, they make the argument for “stability”. I have a different word for what they’re advocating: stagnation (IE6 forever!). Don’t let the open Web be suffocated by unsubstantiated FUD and pompous accusations of bloat.
Oh, here’s more from W3C HTML WG co-chair and IE platform architect Chris Wilson: “In our opinion, a revolution in ECMAScript would be best done with an entirely new language, so we could continue supporting existing users as well as freeing the new language from constraints (including the constraint of performantly supporting scripts written in the old language).” Oh, so we need two languages. OK…
October 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
It seems to be the day for Javascript and Microsoft posts.
http://www.arcanology.com/2007/10/30/ecmascript-and-internet-explorer/
October 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Not only did microsoft ask that the details of the spec be removed[1], they have also so far ignored the numerous[2][3][4][5] replies from other members of the working group.
Though I think part of the issue is simply the red tape inside a company of microsofts size. Official issues like these tend to need a lot of approval.
[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Sep/0043.html
[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Sep/0045.html
[3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Sep/0057.html
[4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Sep/0063.html
[5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Oct/0057.html
October 31st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I suspect you didn’t really read Sunava’s concern (it’s not about “removing detail”, it’s about understanding our compatibility constraints). But then, I guess I shouldn’t expect a balanced viewpoint from a post with “stagnation…unsubstantiated FUD…pompous accusations of bloat”.
As for the ES4 issue, work is not being done in secret. Anyone who wants to be involved can be. Doug is really driving that effort, as I understand it.
@Jonas Sicking, For [2]-[5], Sunava accidentally didn’t subscribe to the public list, and the mails to him directly apparently went into the spam bucket.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Oh, now, we’re fair and balanced here. But someone sent mail to the list saying “bloat is not good design”. I’m sorry, that is just unbelievably pompous.
None of the criticism is precise, but it always insinuates that ES4 will break the Web. That is an attempt to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt, from parties with no record of adequate ES3 implementation.
There are no concrete proposals, since a promise to produce one in April. That is stagnation.
You may find these words inflammatory. Please speak up if you find them to be untrue.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Chris: I would love it if we have misunderstood Sunavas emails and that microsoft would not in fact want to make the spec less detailed. However I fail to see how that could be the case given excerpts like:
“Make XHR spec less detailed/granular” (this is the title of the issue raised)
“The ask here is the level of granularity/ and specificity be reduced. It’s currently too authoritative in depth”
“A simple description of the open call and the types of parameters allowed, including which ones are optional would be great”
If there is in fact a misunderstanding I’m sure that will be clarified in the replies from microsoft that we are still waiting for.