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

Re: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was: Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC Test Suite

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:38:54 -0700
Message-ID: <485B183E.3060205@sicking.cc>
To: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>

Sunava Dutta wrote:
> Inline...
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:38 PM
>> To: Sunava Dutta
>> Cc: Ian Hickson; Zhenbin Xu; public-webapps@w3.org; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT
>> Team
>> Subject: Re: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was:
>> Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC
>> Test Suite
>>
>> Sunava Dutta wrote:
>>> Thanks Ian, Zhenbin for clarifying the issues and a continuing very
>>> productive discussion.
>>> Meanwhile, I'm summarizing some of our requests for the editor based
>>> on issues we've had an opportunity to clarify...There are many
>>> conversations going on and I'd hate to see points getting lost and
>>> would like the specs/test cases updated for issues where discussions
>>> are not ongoing.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ongoing discussion: Specify the parseError attributes for Document
>>> Objects or specify this can be sent out of band. This could be
>>> something we don't have to hold the XHR spec back for as long as we
>>> make a note in the specification that this is pending. There are
>>> people currently talking for and/or against it. Zhenbin is
>>> articulating IE's point.
>> Sounds good to me. We have an informative "Not in this specification"
>> section already, sounds like a good idea to add there.
> 
> [Sunava Dutta] Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

The current spec already contains a section listing things that we are 
intentionally not putting in this version of the spec, but are 
considering for future versions of the spec. I'm suggesting we add parse 
error information to that list.

http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#notcovered

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 02:40:19 GMT

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