- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:38:56 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> One argument is that it's simply impossible to work around an XHR >> implementation that changes the casing in a way that the server >> doesn't expect. For example if the server wants a 'doit' method and >> the XHR implementation case folds to uppercase, the script author will >> simply not be able to use that method. >> >> So in this case I think both mozilla and opera does the wrong thing. > > And here we run into the issue I keep meaning to bring up.... The HTTP > implementation may not be under the control of the XHR implementation. > Certainly in Mozilla all XHR does is pass the method on as-is to the > networking library; it has no control over what the networking library > does with it. Now it so happens that the networking library in question > is also in mozilla.org cvs, so it _might_ be possible to fix it (though > it may also not be; the APIs involved are frozen and have plenty of > other consumers). But there's no guarantee that this is the case for > XHR implementations in general. Well. As method names clearly are case-sensitive, I think the right thing to do here is to have XHR reflect that. If some of the current implementations do not get this right, the spec can warn about potential compliance problems. In the end, we want to have these clients/libraries fixed, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 21:41:04 UTC