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

Re: XHR LC comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:07:37 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ubtamzn364w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 26 May 2008 14:49:52 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> That's understood. But what confuses me is the relation to XHR2 -- it  
> seems that this WG is splitting time for work on two specs, where just  
> working on XHR2 would be more useful.

It's not exactly splitting time as all the issues raised for 1 affect 2.  
Maybe it will turn out that 1 is not needed anymore at some point, but for  
now it seems useful to have.

>>  I deferred this issue to HTML5 for now by referencing the recently  
>> introduced definition of "same origin" there. That makes more sense  
>> because if any changes to that definition are made there it would also  
>> affect XMLHttpRequest.
> Pointer, please?


>>>>> When they are a string, then taking about character encoding doesn't
>>>>> make any sense here.
>>>>  Actually, since you need to encode them for the request it does.
>>> But that totally depends on the authentication scheme. I think you're  
>>> confusing layers here.
>>  It does depend on that and that is mentioned.
> Are you referring to: "14. If the user argument was not omitted and is  
> not null let stored user be user  encoded using the encoding specified  
> in the relevant authentication scheme or UTF-8 if the scheme fails to  
> specify an encoding."?
> This has two problems:
> - it makes "stored used" an octet sequence, not a string.

What is the problem?

> - it simply doesn't work in practice, for instance for Basic  
> Authentication

You're not really helping finding the right solution here. This was added  
for basic authentication if I remember correctly as it does not specify  
any encoding.

>>> How is this relevant for demonstrating the output format for  
>>> getAllResponseHeaders()?
>>  It's relevant in case people copy the example, which I expect to  
>> happen. In case they do that and the example would've used synchronous  
>> code they end up with UI-lockup et cetera, which would be bad.
> Well, we continue to disagree on this point.
> The goal for examples should be to illustrate a specific feature, not to  
> promote a specific coding practice (at least not when doing the latter  
> affects the readability).

I don't think it affects readability that much.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:07:31 UTC

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