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

RE: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>

From: Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:13:12 -0700
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
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>
Message-ID: <72F767ADE7C63540BE69CD2722A41F440E9C93E679@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
The previous specification that Geoffrey Garen from Apple pointed out as incorrect has the following:

"
responseText:
If the state is not LOADING or DONE raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR
exception and terminate these steps.

responseXML:
If the state is not DONE raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception and
terminate these steps.
"

And it indeed doesn't conform to any browser's behavior. It should be revised to:

"
responseText:
If the state is not DONE, raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception and terminate these steps.

responseXML:
If the state is not at least OPENED, raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception and
terminate these steps.

...
[Note: otherwise a responseXML object is returned, which contains additional information
about parserError etc. We have agreed to note this in XHR spec but have it specified in XHR2]
"

I would be interested in knowing whether or not the AJAX library used by greenfiledonline.com
is broken with the revised version. Actually if it work with IE, then it will not be broken
with the above specification I point out.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:36 AM
> To: Zhenbin Xu; Jonas Sicking
> Cc: Sunava Dutta; Ian Hickson; public-webapps@w3.org; IE8 Core AJAX
> SWAT Team
> Subject: Re: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>
>
> 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 Monday, 23 June 2008 17:14:36 GMT

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