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

Re: [XHR] Typos and comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:39:18 +0100
To: "Stewart Brodie" <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.toxhrsde64w2qv@id-c0020.driveway.uu.nl>

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:03:33 +0100, Stewart Brodie  
<stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think the requirements regarding states are already clear enough. For  
instance, if you'd invoke open() during the process you would not go to 4,  
et cetera.

> 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.

I dropped this sentence for now.

> 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.

If other people support this change I'm willing to make the edit.

> 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

It's a security thing. Implementations may do something else in special  

> 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**".


Thanks a lot for your comments!

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 9 March 2007 15:40:03 UTC

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