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

Re: XMLHttpRequest: Why list HTTP method names

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:34:04 -0700
Message-Id: <BEB0BADD-B1B3-4D21-A028-8D91AF72D8EB@apple.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>

On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:

> The key point I would like to make is that XHR is more abstract  
> than what you suggest, and there are use cases that can be solved  
> by creating APIs layered over XHR. In those cases, the layers  
> should be able to define method support applicable at that layer.
> Secondly, it does not make sense to lump all possible  
> implementations into one class and require all those to be inter- 
> operable.

If your implementation won't be interoperable, then why do you want  
to claim to follow the spec? You can just make something that is very  
similar to XMLHttpRequest but doesn't claim conformance, so users of  
the API will know their stock XMLHttpRequest code may not work. The  
whole point of specs is interoperability.

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 02:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC