- From: Carsten Orthbandt <carsten@pixeltamer.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:08:06 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren schrieb: > > The reality required the specification to change. Just out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate on this? > It's not a serious change. It's how XMLHttpRequest works in the real > world. The reason Firefox 3 shows errors in the error console and > Firefox 2 does not is because Firefox 2 never reported stuff in the > error console for XMLHttpRequest. So what is the problem with defining what is an error and what is not in the spec? The initial problem with FF3 solely stems from the fact that this isn't specified at all. If the spec clearly said "if there is no Content-Type specified, the UA should try to treat it as XML, but not raise any error conditions if parsing fails" there would be no compatibility issues and the behaviour of (compliant) XHR implementations would actually match the rules set out in the HTTP protocol. If it is actually intended to raise XML errors on untyped content this would IMHO be a important difference to the HTTP RFC. Carsten Orthbandt pixeltamer.net c/o Carsten Orthbandt Baumschulenstrasse 102 12437 Berlin +49 (0) 30 34347690
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 10:08:20 UTC