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

Re: About XMLHttpRequest Draft

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:55:19 -0000
To: Óscar Toledo G. <uno@biyubi.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tf4ayha564w2qv@id-c0020.emi.ac.ma>

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:14:40 -0000, Óscar Toledo G. <uno@biyubi.com> wrote:
> Also generating exceptions on reading status and statusText,
> is a little awkward, I think that zero and empty string
> are more sensible selections.

There's some amount of legacy content and implementations we have to deal  
with...


> Other suggestions, the send method can include a second
> argument to indicate the desired timeout in milliseconds,
> to generate an event, would be better than setTimeout, as
> the event would not be generated if the answer comes first
> or the onerror handler exists and it is invoked first.

Not for this version. We are considering something like that for  
XMLHttpRequest 2.


> The onerror event is necessary to detect a failed request
> (by example: server not responding HTTP connection), so is
> worth to have it into the draft, along with onload. Other
> alternative would be a special status 5 (Request error)
> for readyState.

Error handling for XMLHttpRequest 1 comes down to going to readyState 4  
and having fields set to their initial values which is what most UAs do  
today. XMLHttpRequest 2 will deal with this.


> In the responseXML description, the draft could say
> something like:
>   "An UA with a HTML implementation, may support
>    additionally text/html, the Document node may have
>    properties related to DOM HTML.".

XMLHttpRequest 2.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 10:56:05 GMT

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