- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:55:10 +0200
- To: "Brad Fults" <bfults@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:47:50 +0200, Brad Fults <bfults@gmail.com> wrote: > I fail to see where the conformance requirements for the url parameter > are specified anywhere within the above quoted text. Well, the user agent requirements are clear imho. I suppose we could have some author requirements in there as well. > [...] > > Not to be absurd, but as the referenced draft [1] currently stands, an > implementor could allow only RFC 2616 URL strings specified in reverse > order (e.g. "/moc.elgoog.www//:ptth") and it would be completely > conformant to the XMLHttpRequest specification. This seems > undesirable. I don't see how it would be conformant. If it's a valid relative reference it would have to be resolved against the base URI (as indicated) and otherwise it should throw. > [...] > > It would seem to me that support for the HTTP and HTTPS URL schemes > should be required, leaving room for other schemes as optional. I'll add that to the issue list. As well as author requirements... Thanks. > [1] - > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#dfn-open -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 14 October 2006 17:55:19 UTC