Re: No arguments to XMLHttpRequest.send (ACTION-58)

"Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
> Jim Ley wrote:
>> "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
>>> I actually think that we should make the spec require an argument for 
>>> now. The whole purpose of this spec is to define what works across all 
>>> browsers so that users know what they can do.
>>
>> I am against there being different behaviour in different methods defined 
>> by the Working Group, I'm open to the idea of always being required, but 
>> in that situation, we should always require parameters, having some 
>> methods e.g. .send( ) which you must specify null for and others e.g. 
>> .open() that are optional is simply confusing to users.
>
> Are users reading the spec or not, make up your mind ;)

The points are not conflicting - your position is that we must put the 
required parameter in because authors will be reading the spec and won't 
want to be fooled into thinking otherwise.  This means that the only reason 
to put it in the spec that it's required is if it's for authors - I don't 
believe if it is, but if you're right, then you need the other text for 
them.

> While most authors won't read the spec I think some will. And more 
> importantly, the copy-chain has to start somewhere, probably at a tutorial 
> or reference site. And people writing those I'd think are more likely to 
> look at the spec.

But we wrote those tutorials in 2002 - and we didn't make the parameter 
required, but we updated it after moz didn't fix the bugs, they won't be 
changed in the light of the spec at all I'm sure - if they are we're 
speccing things wrongly.  I'm for a note in the spec detailing that you 
SHOULD include a parameter, but I want it quite clear that the users don't 
have to - code should still run if they don't in all implementations - I 
still have code from 2002 that doesn't run on other platforms - if I ever 
choose to update that, I want the minimum amount of work.

Cheers,

Jim.

Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 13:23:31 UTC