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: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <485C1B5E.5040105@sicking.cc>
To: Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>
CC: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>

Zhenbin Xu wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
>> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:19 PM
>> To: Zhenbin Xu
>> Cc: Sunava Dutta; Ian Hickson; 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
>>
>> Zhenbin Xu wrote:
>>> Jonas, I don't feel you have summarized our position properly.  We
>>> said it should be exception but we are willing to accommodate other
>>> implementations for the spec to have a leeway there and avoiding
>>> protracted discussions.
>> I assume you mean by the "null or exception" proposal? I think many
>> people have made it quite clear that they think that is the least good
>> solution as it doesn't produce interoperability across browsers.
>>
>>> We have absolutely no problem for the spec to
>>> clearly state that exception is the best API that should be followed.
>> Hehe, yes, that has been quite clear :)
>>
>>> It is backed by technical arguments on my replies.  Let's expand more
>>> there if you feel those are inadequate.
>> Yes please do, I'm curious as to what those technical arguments are.
>> The
>> one I've heard so far is concern about site compatibility with
>> returning
>> null. I.e. you guys are concerned that sites will break if an exception
>> isn't thrown.
>>
> 
> [Zhenbin Xu]  We are concerned because returning null is not a consistent,
> predictable programming model. It is a deviation from other part of the XHR
> design, as well as the state machine approach that entire spec is based on.

Which other parts of the spec is it inconsistent with. I definitely 
agree that consistency is important. Looking at the spec it seems like 
returning null is consistent with .responseText, but not consistent with 
.status and .getResponseHeader().

Ideally we should have consistency across all these properties.

> I believe this has been adequately discussed in my earlier replies.

I'm sorry, I quite possibly have missed it, I apologize for that, I'm 
trying to juggle a number of issues in this WG as you can see :). So 
feel free to send me a pointer to an archived mail (archive is available 
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/) or reiterate the 
reasons here.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 21:04:37 GMT

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