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

Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:59:00 +0200
To: "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tryxkmgk64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>  
>>> Does it mean a conformant implementation could support NO version of
>>> XML?
>> Yes, in theory.
> Isn't there any possibility to put it other way such that at least one
> version must be supported ?

I'm not sure how that would be an advantage for people using wanting to  
implement this API in some obscure language. At some point when we get  
responseBody this will become a relatively simple API to do HTTP stuff  
with. I don't think we should mandate XML support for that. It makes sense  
to support it though, hence it already is a "SHOULD" for fostering  

> In that case, I don't understand why "version" is referenced, since only  
> "1.0" is used, but "1.1" is never referenced.

Ah, I see what you mean. I removed "some version" and mentioned namespaces  
as well.

>> This is clear in the specification. It requires files to be namespace
>> well-formed.
> I, indeed, find that through reading the rest of the spec. But since, it  
> is almost repeated each time in the spec, why not putting it here ?

Namespaces are now called out.

>>> [[
>>> There is a case-insensitive match of strings s1 and s2 if after
>>> upercasing both strings (by mapping a-z to A-Z) they are identical.
>>> ]]
>>> s1 and s2 because there is less confusion with letter a and b
>>> uppercasing because it is used latter in the spec for method
>> Fair enough, done.
> Just to be picky, the uppercasing  instead of  lowercasing has'nt been
> included

Hmm. I didn't feel it was needed. However, it's changed now.


Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 17:59:29 UTC

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