Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

On May 7, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL  
> <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 interoperability.

Can we define a conformance class for implementations that support  
XML parsing, so that we can have MUST-level requirements and a test  
suite for that conformance class? This seems better to me than a SHOULD.

Regards,
Maciej