- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:05:48 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Apr 18, 2006, at 16:25, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:54:43 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann
> <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> * Web APIs Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> ISSUE-75: Is method case-sensitive?
>>
>> We resolved that yes, the parameter is case-sensitive. This
>> implies that
>> scripts like those in the draft are essentially incorrect since
>> there is
>> no 'get' method yet. I think we should have a very visible warning
>> for
>> this in the draft then.
>
> So what testcases were being used? I understand that this is what
> HTTP says but if implementations are different (for XMLHttpRequest
> at least) we should have some reasons and arguments for making it
> case-sensitive. I'd like this issue to be reopened because there's
> not sufficient information on how the group reached consensus on
> it. (I read the minutes.)
I think there's a thin line between documenting what implementations
do, no matter how horrible (like, say, almost everything in this
interface) and standardising downright bugs (like, say, requiring send
(null) when there's nothing to send). If implementations are not case-
sensitive for the method name, I would say it really is bug and it
needs to be fixed rather than ratified.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 15:05:34 UTC