- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:22:54 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP WG" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:57:48 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > My understanding is that it depends, and needs to decided on a > per-header basis. We can try classifications that make it easier to > decide, and we may even be able to recommend a default, but this will > break when a new header needs the non-default behavior. I don't think that will work for us. It needs to be the same irrespective of the header. Or some kind of fixed unchanging list for which things is different. > The base issue is splitting the responsibilities between two layers, and > have the lower layer (XHR) trying to decide things that the upper layer > (the script) should know. > > I'm not sure what this has to do with "HTML Fetch", as the problem is > specific to XHR. I recommend to fix the base issue first, which is that > clients can't ask XHR not to follow redirects. XMLHttpRequest uses HTML fetch. Server-sent events does too, and a number of other things affected do so as well. You indeed keep bringing up that we should add a feature to XMLHttpRequest and that it will resolve the problem. But adding a feature does not resolve the problem. We will still have the problem for when such a feature is not used. So lets address that. Adding a feature for redirects is completely orthogonal as I explained several times now. I am getting somewhat tired of having to repeat myself. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 15:23:40 UTC