- From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:03:33 +0000
- To: public-webapi@w3.org
These comments refer to the Feburary 27th Last Call version of the document. Section 1.2: typo: conforming script: "A script MUST satisfy the **constrains** ..." Section 2.1: typo: "In addition, when the state is not uninitialized, all members of the object with the exception of **onreadystate** MUST be set to ..." This should be onreadystatechange, presumably. Section 2.1 send(): typo: "Note: This means that in case of a HEAD request the state is set to loaded immediately after having **being** set to receiving." Should be 'been', presumably missed after 'having' was added. Section 2.1 send(): same note on HEAD: clarification: I would like to see an additional sentence prepending that one in the note that rams home the point that you cannot skip states just because progress has been made quicker than expected. Something like: "The object MUST pass through each of those states and not omit any states due to reaching the next state quickly." Then the sentence about HEAD that follows is an example. This clarification would be useful for non-HTTP transports where results are available instantly, for instance when file URIs are accessed. Section 2.1 right at the end: "HTTP requests from multiple different XMLHttpRequest objects in succession SHOULD use a shared HTTP connection". I think this statement fits better in the description of send() - it seems rather lost in its current position, particularly since the main method that it affects is send(). I also think that it should be a non-normative note and SHOULD should be MAY, because this is a high-level specification that should not be interfering with the user agent's low-level transport. Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: I really do not like the lack of "Connection" in this list at all. I don't see what value it affords the application that the user agent's HTTP engine cannot already derive. Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: why is this not a MUST requirement? My HTTP implementation code will most certainly not permit some of those headers to be set, specifically Acknowledgements: typo: "also to the WHATWG for **drafing** a first version" An administrative section typo that I assume is irrelevant because those sections will change in the final document anyway: Status of this document: "This is the 27 February 2007 Last Call Working Draft of The XMLHttpRequest Object **specifcation**". -- Stewart Brodie Software Engineer ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 16:03:35 UTC