Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I see. (Your original message seemed to imply the list was not correct.) > To be honest, and as I've stated in my reply to Julian, I'm not sure > what the rationale is for some of them. Hopefully implementors can chime > in on this thread and provide feedback for why each of the headers > listed in setRequestHeader() is blocked. Right. On the other hand, if nobody can explain why a particular header is on that list, it should be removed. > I'm not sure if that information should be included in the specification > itself though. Generally that's not done in specifications as far as I > can tell. I'd say it's done in well-written specs. BR, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 08:40:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 May 2008 08:40:59 GMT