W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Fetch API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:30:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78jyccB+AsLHa9BLMhpi93f9B3mEv2jhDrSqg4NPSsbb6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> I'm still arguing that we shouldn't have a HeaderMap class at all, and
> instead just use normal Map objects. And in places where we take a map
> as an argument, also allow plain JS objects that are then enumerated.

You have not explained how that would work however. Adding headers
might have to change the mode of the request. We cannot allow all
headers. A Map does not even map to how HTTP headers work. As
discussed in https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/300
headers are a list where you can have duplicate names and ordering is
sometimes significant.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 08:31:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC