- 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>
On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:56:45 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 12:14:21 UTC