Following up to a mail from May 2008: Julian Reschke wrote: > Sunava Dutta wrote: >> ... >>> At this point, I'm not sure why we're bothering with XHR1 at all. It is >>> *not* what the current implementations do anyway. >> [Sunava Dutta] I'm sorry, this statement is concerning and I'd like to >> understand it better. We haven’t had a chance to run the latest test >> suite yet but expect the test suite to be compliant with at least two >> existing implementations. Do you mean the XHR 1 draft is not >> interoperable with existing implementations? >> ... > > Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it > turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of > the browsers works as specified. > > Examples: > > - Support for HTTP extension methods: IE violates the SHOULD level > requirement to support extenstion methods. Opera silently (!!!) changes > extension method names to "POST". > ... Just rechecked... IE8beta: no improvement -- only the methods in RFC2518 are are supported, the remaining methods (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-01.html>), not to mention future methods, are unsupported. Opera 10: only a small improvement; unknown method names are now changed to "GET" (still silently!!!). Best regards, JulianReceived on Monday, 9 February 2009 10:50:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:06 GMT