Re: Extension methods & XMLHttpRequest

> That is a waste of space.  The spec should say why methods exist and
> that only known safe methods can be used without user intervention.
> (Intervention includes such things a specific configuration prior
> to running the application, not just pop-up boxes.)
> That is what HTTP and HTML already requires.  What it should not do
> is list a small set of methods and say implementations MUST (NOT)
> implement them -- that is none of your business and simply sets up
> the implementers to be fooled by unexpected extensions.
>

I agree here. However it seems the WEB-API is more interested in
documenting the choices made by browser vendors regarding issues such as
security or the way they interpret HTTP rather than producing a higher
level specification that would follow the spirit of the HTTP RFC which
would push them to modify their implementation.

Basically, I've seen a few times now some regular of the WEB-API group
saying "we've been doing that way for a while now. It works so there is no
reason to change and break implementations".

Therefore the ultimate purpose of that WG is fairly unclear to me.

- Sylvain