Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that does not
support XML at all !!


On 5/7/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €