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

Re: Compatibility of SVG Tiny 1.2's getURL() and XMLHttpRequest

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:27:43 +0200
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <f1f3h3l2qeohs293r475opv7pehan4njeh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Cameron McCormack wrote:
>Perhaps “tightening the definition to align more closely with what UAs
>actually allow” would have been a better way for me to put it.  

So what do implementations actually allow now and in the future? It
seems to me, as you don't actually give precise rules for other schemes,
you might aswell say, implementations may support other schemes, and
must handle them in a manner analogous to HTTP, and possibly update the
specification if some new specification that maps other protocols onto
HTTP APIs that you can reference emerges.

>By “functionally equivalent to HTTP” I mean “is the same as HTTP but
>happens to use a different URI scheme”, which is closer to the actual
>wording that would be included (“functionally equivalent” being a bit
>weasely).

You mean if the underlying protocol *is* HTTP, right? As I said, I do
not think this is a particularily sensible restriction. If some imple-
menter can and wants to support postURL on some additional scheme, they
are highly likely to just ignore such a restriction.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 07:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:58 GMT