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

Re: XHR LC comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 14:13:52 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Sunava Dutta" <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ubar9emq64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:56:45 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> But what IMHO happens all over again is that strange choices in the  
> design are defended with the statement "this is what the vendors do, or  
> want to do", and when we check it, that turns out to be incorrect.

Could you point out one such example? I've actually tested a fair amount  
of stuff, including headers, methods, etc. I agree that some of the  
details of headers need to be worked out. For null/""/undefined I've been  
waiting for the Web IDL specification. For which headers can be set by the  
user agent I don't really have an answer and that part has not been  
defined as such. That setRequestHeader() always appends was a conscious  
choice to be in line with Internet Explorer. Initially the design was so  
that it special cased a bunch of headers that did not allow duplication  
which would have been more in line with Firefox, but given that it is not  
a fixed list and the Internet Explorer route seemed more appropriate.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 12:14:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:27 UTC