On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:04:09 +0100, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap-carbon@rambler.ru> wrote: > It is not really obvious to me why this is even desirable - isn't it > easier to serve as XHTML in cases when responseXML is needed? After all, > XMLHttpRequest is not a general purpose HTTP library, so we don't need to > worry about arbitrary content. I think it actually is a general purpose HTTP library, despite the name. (For ECMAScript anyway.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:48:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT