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

[XHR] Typos and comments

From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:03:33 +0000
To: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <b1f998ae31db86c2573bc3efac674881d466bb04@localhost>

These comments refer to the Feburary 27th Last Call version of the document.

Section 1.2: typo: conforming script: "A script MUST satisfy the
**constrains** ..."

Section 2.1: typo: "In addition, when the state is not uninitialized, all
members of the object with the exception of **onreadystate** MUST be set to
..." This should be onreadystatechange, presumably.

Section 2.1 send(): typo: "Note: This means that in case of a HEAD request
the state is set to loaded immediately after having **being** set to
receiving."  Should be 'been', presumably missed after 'having' was added.

Section 2.1 send(): same note on HEAD: clarification:  I would like to see
an additional sentence prepending that one in the note that rams home the
point that you cannot skip states just because progress has been made
quicker than expected.  Something like: "The object MUST pass through each
of those states and not omit any states due to reaching the next state
quickly."  Then the sentence about HEAD that follows is an example.  This
clarification would be useful for non-HTTP transports where results are
available instantly, for instance when file URIs are accessed.

Section 2.1 right at the end: "HTTP requests from multiple different
XMLHttpRequest objects in succession SHOULD use a shared HTTP connection".

I think this statement fits better in the description of send() - it seems
rather lost in its current position, particularly since the main method that
it affects is send().

I also think that it should be a non-normative note and SHOULD should be
MAY, because this is a high-level specification that should not be
interfering with the user agent's low-level transport.

Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: I really do not like the lack of
"Connection" in this list at all.  I don't see what value it affords the
application that the user agent's HTTP engine cannot already derive.

Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: why is this not a MUST
requirement?  My HTTP implementation code will most certainly not permit
some of those headers to be set, specifically

Acknowledgements: typo: "also to the WHATWG for **drafing** a first version"

An administrative section typo that I assume is irrelevant because those
sections will change in the final document anyway:

Status of this document: "This is the 27 February 2007 Last Call Working
Draft of The XMLHttpRequest Object **specifcation**".

Stewart Brodie
Software Engineer
ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 16:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC