W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ISSUE-71: setRequestHeader has too many header restrictions

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 21:39:05 +0100
Message-ID: <001b01c65a83$4fea0430$2402a8c0@Snufkin>
To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
> I don't understand what you mean by "restricted" here.
>
> Authors shouldn't be exposed to the character encoding and transfer
> encoding aspects of the network layer. It doesn't affect them. There is no
> reason for them to lessen the list of accepted charsets (since the server
> can send back whatever it wants anyway)

I've already given my use case, in 
http://www.w3.org/mid/065b01c658e9$eb1ba6c0$817ba8c0@Snufkin zero install 
tools on a site are very useful, but for that to exist we need to be able to 
match requests that were evaluated, so we need to be able to recreate the 
request.

Given that your only argument appears to be "it's not a good idea", rather 
than, it's not implementable or whatever, I can't see why you feel other 
peoples use cases are not acceptable ones to meet - particularly given that 
implementations currently support the use cases and you want to make them 
more restrictive.

>> > I would ask that we only allow additions to this one.
>>
>> Use case?
>
> Allowing authors to fake the UA string can screw around with proxies and
> stuff. I see no value in allowing that.

Could you provide some more details on "screw around with proxies and 
stuff", I see no problems, and it's the same use case as the previous one.

Cheers,

Jim. 
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 20:40:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT