- 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>
On Wed, 09 May 2007 07:18:32 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> 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 problem. >> 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 <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 12:08:34 UTC