- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:41:59 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> > In IE you can at least test for .status == 200 to test if things worked > out ok. Even though the statuscode for various errors seem to be weird to > say the least, at least they are different from the success codes. > > I actually think this is how we should do errorhandling for now since that > should work with most existing content. I would be content with this, but no-one else appeared to be in Oslo. > If we do go to state 4 then things will look almost exactly like a > successful response. The only difference is that .responseXML will be > null, but that is already the case for a lot of consumers that send > non-xml data. I'd sort of disagree, the problem will manifest itself by the result not being parseable as expected, as you say a null XML document is a perfectly fine indicator of failure for XML expecting people - those sending json will get a script error, those getting some other structured format won't be able to parse it etc. The only situation will be if the responseText is trivially directed to the output, but as I say that's the reality anyway, this sort of error handling simply isn't used. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2006 07:43:34 UTC