W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: HTTP status code equivalents for file:// operations - compat with xhr

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:55:56 -0700
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <A9ACAA50-22EA-41B3-A5F7-72AFD14A7F37@oracle.com>
To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>

On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:33:24 -0400, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
>>
>>> 4. If file:// access isn't implemented (like in IE), don't have  
>>> open() throw. Instead, make this.status be 501.
>>
>> This is a breaking change to the XHR spec which asks to throw an  
>> error. Have you considered the effect of making the proposed change?
>
> Yes.

Then perhaps this proposal is moot. Who would really care to change  
their XHR code to deal with a change that gives them no benefit? This  
is assuming that those who have written http:// code are not currently  
using file: - which practically is the audience you have today.

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com


>
> "8. Don't have open() throw for cross-domain security restriction.  
> Instead,
> use status code 403."
>
> does the same.
>
> I could live without those changes as long as there was information  
> for the security_err exception so that you could tell the difference  
> between the 2.
>
> Of course, the "Easier Alternative:" I mentioned in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0686.html 
> > might be a better way to do things.
>
> -- 
> Michael
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 21:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT