On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:17:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> I don't follow. (E.g. I've no idea what you mean by stating that URLs >> are URLs.) > > The URL parameter to be used in XHR could be defined as an URL as > defined in RFC 3986. I see. >> We want to support the following scenarios >> client.open("GET", "x x") >> client.open("GET", "ë") > > Who is "we"? I think I don't. The WG majority. >> second case currently is no reason not to make it work going forward, >> especially since everyone else already does support it. > > Are you referring to XHR 1 or XHR 2? 1. > Speaking of which, what's the state of XHR 1? Still stuck at figuring out the event loop. It also needs a better definiton of base URL. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 15:31:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:40:29 GMT