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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:27:49 -0800
Message-Id: <6F06CBA2-3A4E-486E-BA02-47A14E092BFF@apple.com>
Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>

On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:36 AM, Jim Ley wrote:

> "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.

If we really all agree this is the right future path, we could make  
it a SHOULD and mention that it will be a future MUST-level  
requirement. If Firefox 2.0 will fix it, then I guess it becomes a  
question of how soon it will ship relative to the spec.

>> 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.

I suppose it is possible we have a bug in some cases, however, the  
support is definitely in the code and tested by our automated  
regression tests.

Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 18:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:20 UTC