- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:36:51 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:18:26 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> But not saying anything is likely to hurt compatibility between >> implementations and make authors rely on features that only work in >> some browsers. > > But saying something is going to profile HTTP. This may or may not be a > useful extension point, and it shouldn't be closed down by this WG. > Please leave HTTP questions to the HTTP working group. If this is later overridden by HTTP and implementors actually change their implementations to allow that we can always change the XMLHttpRequest specification. For now GET requests will never have an entity body. This was only needed for GET requests, right? > What's next? Disallowing non-RFC2616 methods because Opera screws them > up? Why not fix the implementations instead? In this case it's not clear that the implementations are broken given that they all do it in the same way and all would like to remain doing so it seems. Also, as Jonas points out there's a cross-site risk involved in case of XMLHttpRequest Level 2. I haven't yet updated XMLHttpRequest Level 2 to keep it stable while we work out the First Public Working Draft details. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 13:35:58 UTC