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

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:52:42 +0200
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21uj421t621d8d4e6lr5m22dp8838sftoe@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Jim Ley wrote:
>Please provide example code that is not poorly written that achieves the 
>same as the previous example. (There are some minor syntactical issues that 
>I might prefer for clarity, and the opera check should be first if it really 
>does create stubs... but otherwise it seems basically appropriate.)

I have no idea what the code is supposed to do and what constraints
there are. It is not clear, for example, why you cannot just use e.g.

  obj.MozFoo = obj.WebkitFoo = obj.OperaFoo = 0.7;

for the first three implementations, or why it is not a concern that
obj.MozFoo might be set to 0.0 where the code would set obj.Foo = 70
even though Mozilla apparently does not support that, and why only
IE implements the standard solution obj.Foo. I am also not sure why
users would need to be exposed to the non-informative alert() (which
is not a non-standard feature) and there are syntactical issues as
you point out. There may be good reasons for all of this, of course,
but that doesn't help us make progress on this matter.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2006 09:52:46 GMT

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