- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:34:17 +0100
- To: David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
I *think* this was covered in the omnibus proposal for send & setRequestHeader that I made a while back... On 2006/05/16, at 12:54 AM, David Flanagan wrote: > > Anne, > > Perhaps you did not see my response to Jonas' message: > >> So then you just need to add something to the spec that makes it >> perfectly clear that XMLHttpRequest scripts the HTTP subsystem of >> the UA, and does not create its own network connections and >> implement rudimentary HTTP itself... >> Perhaps you could add a note of this sort to the spec for >> getAllRequestHeaders() something saying that the UA sees these and >> processes them as it would for an HTTP request initiated by the >> end user. > > My original point was simply that there is a non-parallelism in the > spec as it stands now. Outgoing cookies are explicitly addressed, > but incoming cookies are not. If you make it clear that > XMLHttpRequest uses the HTTP facilities of the UA, then that would > satisfy me. > > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:15:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking >> <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>>> What I meant, however, was that you need to specify that the >>>> browser must/should/should not store cookies sent with the >>>> response to an XMLHttpRequest. >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure that we actually need to specify this. A UA >>> supporting cookies should use them in any and all http >>> transfers. If we go and specify how every possible web feature >>> interact with XHR we're never going to get done. >> I tend to agree. David, what do you think? > > > -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 10:35:00 UTC