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

Re: Recent spec change to XMLHttpRequest default Content-Type

From: Carsten Orthbandt <carsten@pixeltamer.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:45:23 +0200
Message-ID: <46724393.3070604@pixeltamer.net>
To: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Jim Ley schrieb:
> Logging of errors is something that should be entirely down to the
> application, there is no need for the spec to require certain things be
> logged in an error console or not - or even the existence of an error
> console - whilst I'm very sympathetic for your desire to make mozilla
> based logging more useful, I do not believe changing the specification
> here, and am entirely happy with the relevant part of the spec, with the
> content sniffing.

My wording here was probably unclear. My intent is not to have the spec
define how or when an UA should report errors. I'd like the spec to define
what is an actual error in the processing and what are merely different
execution paths of the algorithms laid out.
Having a XML Content-Type but non-well-formed content would constitute an
error. Not having XML content when it wasn't specified as XML in the first
place would not be an error.

There already are definitions of when to throw an exception. There are
also definitions of when object fields have to be set to NULL. What is left
out is the distinction between
a) set to NULL and it's ok and within the spec
b) set to NULL but that's because the response is NOT well-formed per spec

(well-formed NOT meaning well-formed XML, just well-formed in terms of the
XMLHttpRequest spec)

Best regards,

Carsten Orthbandt


pixeltamer.net
c/o Carsten Orthbandt
Baumschulenstrasse 102
12437 Berlin
+49 (0) 30 34347690
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 07:45:31 GMT

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