W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [XHR] (Late) LC Comments

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:40:17 +0200
Message-ID: <485197C1.2000205@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org

Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> 
> On 12 Jun 2008, at 13:55, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I think it would be better if HTTP defined what clients should assume 
>>> (200 and OK most likely) in case the response data does not include 
>>> it. Your HTTP parsing specification could do this for instance.
>>> ...
>>
>> In HTTP/1.*, the status code is what the response says, and the status 
>> text is purely decorative. If it's not there, it's not there. Claiming 
>> it was "OK" would be misleading.
> 
> Still, throwing INVALID_STATUS_ERR seems to defy logic, and current 
> implementations.

The error should be treated like any other network error.

>> WRT earlier HTTP versions: how would care?
> 
> s/how/who/, I assume?

Yes.

> There's still (amazingly) a number of servers that do still have 
> HTTP/0.9 behaviour, and support _is_ still needed. The behaviour 
> everywhere, as far as I can tell, it to just return 200/OK.

Really? Evidence please? And are there use cases for accessing thise 
using XHR?

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:41:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:25 GMT