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

Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:42:14 -0700
Message-Id: <04D66034-1C5F-4316-98DD-CE933D50F01A@apple.com>
Cc: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

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.

Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 21:42:21 UTC

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