- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:49:45 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>>> I would tentatively say the following are not valid reasons to >>>> restrict a header: >>>> >>>> 4) It could result in content that the UA might not be able to parse >>>> as text or as XML (this can happen anyway with no custom headers). >>> >>> If a header will always cause the UA to not be able to parse the >>> response as neither text or XML then I think that could be >>> disallowed. There is no point in giving users a tool if the only >>> thing they can do with it is shoot themselfs in the foot. >>> >>> However I'm not sure if there are any such headers though, so this >>> might be a moot point. >> >> I assume that user agent are allowed to extend the object to support >> binary request and response streams (such as IE does), in which case >> that restriction wouldn't make any sense... > > I'm not sure I follow you here. IE's XmlHttpRequest object already supports binary streams, both for request bodies and for response bodies. If a UA allows that, restricting headers so that responses are always text or XML doesn't make sense anymore. Hope this helps, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 23:52:05 UTC