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

Re: ACTION-148: responseText and encoding

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 14:47:21 +0200
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s9jkg7tt64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:35:16 +0200, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
> That was your personal opinion, and not a decision by the group...  
> currently I do not believe any of todays user agents could pass a test  
> suite of the XHR object, if that's the case then I think it's difficult  
> to claim that we're defining a common subset that authors can rely on.
>
> That may of course be fine, but if it is then we should stop pretending  
> we're trying to define what people can rely on.
>
> My view is that like Moz's (null) bug, we should make it a SHOULD so  
> authors know they cannot rely on the behaviour currently.

During the F2F (again, minutes are not yet released) the group agreed upon  
not having this reliable baseline approach as it didn't work out.  
Therefore Moz's (null) bug is now a MUST and this is too. That's also the  
reason we made XMLHttpRequest an EventTarget and introduced the  
readystatechange event. There was an additional resolution on a feature  
freeze so no more features will be added, but all features that are added  
will be sufficiently defined to be interoperable implementable in  
browsers. I hope that clarifies things and I also hope you can attend next  
meeting :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 12:47:31 GMT

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