On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:47:03 +0200, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com> wrote: >> So if we can change .responseText to also throw an exception then I'd >> be fine with having .responseXML also throw. > > [Zhenbin Xu] Sounds good. Thanks! FWIW, I exlained why these members do not throw currently in this e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0188.html Which contained a pointer to this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/thread.html#msg94 Where it is explained that throwing for responseText and responseXML is not implemented in a consistent way in Internet Explorer and breaks some library. All the subsequent e-mails (in reply to my explanation) were about parse errors and did not address the issues with throwing for responseText and responseXML as far as I can tell (instead of returning the empty string and null). (Also, would it be possible to use slightly less verbose and more to the point subject lines? It would help a lot with skimming through e-mail, of which I get quite bit :/) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 10:35:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT