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

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] update from the editor

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:07:48 +0200
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tr31baht64w2qv@id-c0020.guest-int.opera.no>

On Wed, 09 May 2007 07:18:32 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
>> The reason is that the draft needs to be reasonably compatible with
>> existing content such that it can be implemented without breaking  
>> content.
> If you think my suggestion would break existing content, it would be
> more useful if you could actually explain your reasoning to me. It is
> clear to me that Content-Type:text/xsl indicates the message body is
> an XML document, I do not understand why adopting the text I proposed
> would break any content.

If one UA treats Content-Type:text/foobar as XML and another UA does not  
and a site starts relying on text/foobar being treated as XML we have a  

>> The user agent conformance class clearly says as long as the algorithm
>> used produces the same result it doesn't matter how they do it.
> If an implementation does the method syntax check before the same
> origin check, you would get a SYNTAX_ERR exception; if you change
> the order, you get a SECURITY_ERR exception. Clearly those are not
> the same result. The question is why the draft now mandates a par-
> ticular execution order. It is not clear to me it should.

That is indeed the result. Does anyone else finds this problematic?

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 12:08:34 UTC

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