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

Re: XMLHttpRequest conformance comments

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:18:16 -0600
Message-ID: <e3f21b1a0608021018g1b37497fxb2ddeabf1e48db3b@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webapi@w3.org
True. Since the XHR spec is not really concerned about if and how
applications write/code to empty headers, it does not make sense to require
that this method return empty string. I think the semantics of a single
getResponseHeader() could include the cases of both non-existent headers as
well as header with an empty value. But the current definition prevents
this, prompting for methods isResponseHeaderPresent(), which IMO, would not
be required if the semantics are changed to return null.

Subbu

On 8/2/06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> SOAPAction will have an empty value in some cases.
>
> (not that you'll ever catch me using SOAPAction... ;)
>
>
> On 2006/08/02, at 12:51 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>
> >> If compatibility to existing code (which doesn't check for null)
> >> is the
> >> driver here, then please consider adding a new method such as
> >> "isHeaderPresent(headername)".
> >
> > Purely out of interest, could you give the use case?
> >
> > --
> > Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )
> > \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> > http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _
> > \  ;`._ ,.
> > Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--
> > (,_..'`-.;.'
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> mnot@yahoo-inc.com
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------------
http://www.subbu.org
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 17:18:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT