W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2008

Re: XHR LC comments

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 10:03:18 +0200
Message-ID: <482E9146.6010305@gmx.de>
To: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Sunava Dutta wrote:
> ...
>> At this point, I'm not sure why we're bothering with XHR1 at all. It is
>> *not* what the current implementations do anyway.
> [Sunava Dutta] I'm sorry, this statement is concerning and I'd like to understand it better. We haven’t had a chance to run the latest test suite yet but expect the test suite to be compliant with at least two existing implementations. Do you mean the XHR 1 draft is not interoperable with existing implementations?
> ...

Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it 
turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of 
the browsers works as specified.

Examples:

- Support for HTTP extension methods: IE violates the SHOULD level 
requirement to support extenstion methods. Opera silently (!!!) changes 
extension method names to "POST".

- setRequestHeader: none of the browsers throws an exception when 
setting the header to null. Some do something useful (removing the 
header), some treat it like an empty string, some seem to set the valoue 
to the string "null".

I'm also concerned that the spec proposes behaviour that leads to silent 
data loss, although it's totally unclear why this is needed for 
interoperability (such as when a DOM to be serialized has no XML 
representation).

It seems that what's needed here is more work on the test suite. LC is 
way too early.


BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 08:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 17 May 2008 08:05:03 GMT