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

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Request for Last Call 2

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:03:11 +0200
To: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>, "Stewart Brodie" <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttarzlul64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:01:23 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen  
<hallvord@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:58:30 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:20:21 +0200, Stewart Brodie  
>> <stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote:
>>> The send() event seems to have changed considerably since the previous
>>> drafts that I saw. I think that you need more explanation for the  
>>> bizarre readystatechange event during step 5 of the send() algorithm  
>>> since, as the note points out, the state hasn't changed.
>>
>> This is matches what implementations do.
>
> I'm quite late to the party but as a general comment I think there is  
> such a thing as a quirk that no real life sites rely on, or are  
> extremely unlikely to rely on, in which case it would not need to become  
> standardised. For a corner case like this my gut feeling would be to  
> only add it to the spec if content was found that depended on this  
> behaviour.

We have two choices: getting Internet Explorer and Firefox changed or  
specify what they do and have other browsers align with them. I personally  
don't think the former is doable here.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2007 14:03:51 GMT

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