Re: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th

On Monday, April 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:

> Hi Marcos,
> Thanks for the quick response.
> 
> Re: removal of Sec. 6.4 (section on dereferencing):
> 
> > Can you explain why you think this section should be dropped? (or if it's in the other email, just let me know.)
> 
> I do cover some technical issues with this section in the other email. In general, we believe this section is overly-prescriptive, and does not allow for other valid approaches. We believe the handling of XHR requests targeted to files in a package can be left up to the implementation.
> 

Without resulting to proxy middle ware, how? Also, what happens if one runtime supports HTTP responses and another one doesn't - and the dev's application is depending on HTTP response driven events (e.g., onerror, onload)? This would likely cause interoperability issues, no?  

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 17:03:17 UTC