W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Comments on Feb 13 draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:48:38 +0100
Message-ID: <45D76A26.5090703@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapi@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
>>>> That's a bit misleading. What does "combine" mean precisely? Is the 
>>>> intent to require implementations to assume that the header format 
>>>> is a comma-separated list?
>>>  Yes.
>>
>> So please clarify.
> 
> Section 4.2 already talks about this quite explicitly. What do you want 
> it to say?

First of all, it's only the last paragraph of 4.2 which talks about 
this, so being a bit more specific would probably help.

Also, I don't think the consequences of this are obvious to people who 
aren't very familiar with RFC2616, so it may make sense to spell it out 
explicitly ("You can't reset a header value unless it's in the above 
list, it will be appended instead").

>> If an XHR object is passed around between several parts of the code, 
>> it's not trivial to ensure that a header is only set once. Some 
>> headers have list semantics, some do not.
>>
>> It would be great if a script could say:
>>
>>    xhr.removeRequestHeader("xyz");
>>    xhr.serRequestHeader("xyz", "bar");
>>
>> to make sure that the header value actually *is* "bar", and not "foo, 
>> bar", just because some other part of the code set it before.
> 
> I added this to the future version wishlist. You probably also want 
> getRequestHeader I suppose to see what has actually been set so far.

Right.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 20:48:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT