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

Re: No arguments to XMLHttpRequest.send (ACTION-58)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:36:15 -0000
Message-ID: <014601c63ec7$723b49e0$1beefe51@Snufkin>
To: "Web APIs WG" <public-webapi@w3.org>

"Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
> For things that some but not all UAs implement, and that we'd like to 
> require in a future version, we can add an informative note, or make  it a 
> MAY or OPTIONAL level requirement.
>
> How does that sound as a general approach?
>
> I thinkingthe no-arg version of send() would fall under this  category. It 
> does seem like something we want eventually, but could  be MAY-level or an 
> informative "some implementations allow this" note  for XMLHttpRequest 
> 1.0.

I much prefer the reverse, "some implementations are broken w.r.t." 
especially as Jonas has already said it will be fixed shortly - it would be 
pretty odd to have a spec which says 1 implementation is broken, when that 
implementation isn't even broken.

I do not want any future implementation to require parameters, it's broken 
behaviour, and it breaks a lot of old existing content - stuff that doesn't 
get updated for mozilla, I don't see why we should penalise authors and 
reward browsers who admit they have a bug.  We can have a note saying that - 
FireFox pre 2.0 is broken, you must use .send("BUG!") that's fine and will 
ensure authors won't make the mistake.  I am more concerned about 
implementors not making the mistake.

> We do have getResponseHeader and getAllResponseHeaders in Safari.

In the test on Robin's version it appeared it didn't - I have no idea of the 
version though and it was a very quick test reaching over robins shoulder.

Jim. 
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 13:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:53 GMT