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>  
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT