- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:53:27 +0100
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:44:31 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:47:37 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> >> wrote: >>> 3) The spec as written doesn't "state nothing", it appears to clearly >>> require sending an entity body and does not allow ignoring the body or >>> throwing an exception regardless of what is allowed per RFC. So some >>> change is needed, one way or another. >> >> Ok. How about we add a step 5 of the send() algorithm that states that >> additional requirements in RFC 2616 are also to be taken into account. >> That should effectively defer the issue to RFC 2616. > > You have to elaborate on this suggestion; there is already a fifth step > and taking something into account could mean just about anything so I'm > not sure what you are proposing. I think my proposal is that the exact semantics of the request depend on RFC 2616. So if that specification states that the entity body must not be included that must be honered by the XMLHttpRequest implementation (for instance). -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:52:06 UTC