- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:31:00 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:17:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I don't follow. (E.g. I've no idea what you mean by stating that URLs
>> are URLs.)
>
> The URL parameter to be used in XHR could be defined as an URL as
> defined in RFC 3986.
I see.
>> We want to support the following scenarios
>> client.open("GET", "x x")
>> client.open("GET", "ë")
>
> Who is "we"? I think I don't.
The WG majority.
>> second case currently is no reason not to make it work going forward,
>> especially since everyone else already does support it.
>
> Are you referring to XHR 1 or XHR 2?
1.
> Speaking of which, what's the state of XHR 1?
Still stuck at figuring out the event loop. It also needs a better
definiton of base URL.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 15:31:48 UTC