W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Extension methods & XMLHttpRequest

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:22:19 +0200
To: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ta023hg864w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:18:56 +0200, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>  
wrote:
> 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.

I would like to hear some specific examples as I'm not really convinced  
this is the case. For example, things like conditional GET are not  
implemented in browsers, but are pointed out in the specification. Same  
for transparently following redirects (just talking about XMLHttpRequest  
here).


> 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.

The purpose of the WG is to standardize (existing) scripting APIs in a way  
that doesn't break them as used on the web today, but also to allow new  
things to be added and make them work better with existing specifications  
(when already deployed).


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 10:22:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:44 GMT