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

Re: Wrapped implementations of XHR in script

From: Gorm Haug Eriksen <gormer@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:31:37 +0200
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Subbu Allamaraju" <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.thcsq0apm2jbu9@id-c0364.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:14:11 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:57:38 +0200, Subbu Allamaraju  
> <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a question on the nature of implementations possible for XHR. In
>> particular, would the following be a valid scenario?
>
> The specification is intended to be implemented by user agents, not  
> script libraries. In any case, if the particular scripting language  
> doesn't allow you to implement it, it's probably a limitation of that  
> scripting language, no? And if you use the getter and setter syntax for  
> attributes that at least Firefox supports I guess you should also be  
> able to throw exceptions... I've never played much with that though.

I think Allamarajus issue is valid. Having closely tied browser  
specifications that are not implementable in the browser is questionable.  
We should discuss further if the specification can be relaxed with regards  
to property reading or if we should require that this specification must  
be implementable in user side JavaScript.

IMO using proprietary Firefox extensions is not really an option.  
JavaScript already support 'watch', but I don't think this is widely  
implemented (e.g. Opera doesn't support it).

Cheers,

- Gorm Haug Eriksen
Received on Friday, 13 October 2006 09:31:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT