Carsten Orthbandt wrote: > ... > The currently published version at http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ > says in section 2.1 responseXML that > ... "Published" in the sense of "work in progress". Don't rely on these things. > ... > So what do I want? > > - I'd like to avoid the implied header overhead of Content-Type for protocols > that don't use XML. You're violating a SHOULD level requirement of HTTP/1.1 then. Sorry, but that's what you get for that :-). > - I definately dont want to see future browsers choke on that Actually, I'm tempted to say it would be good for the web if more UAs would flag missing content-type headers. > ... Best regards, JulianReceived on Friday, 15 June 2007 07:48:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT