- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:23:44 +0100
- To: "Dan Winship" <danw@novell.com>, "web API" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:54:47 +0100, Dan Winship <danw@novell.com> wrote: > That description isn't quite right, since readyState is 3 *while* > receiving the message body too. Maybe: Fixed. > Where is SECURITY_ERR defined? (AFAICT the answer is "nowhere".) It will be defined in a revision of DOM Level 3 Core. >> User agents MUST at least support the following list of methods (see >> [RFC2616]): >> * GET >> * POST >> * HEAD >> * PUT >> * DELETE >> * OPTIONS >> ... >> When method case-insensitively matches GET, POST, HEAD, PUT or >> DELETE user agents MUST use the uppercase equivalent instead. > > OPTIONS got added to the first last in the most recent draft, and should > probably be added to the second list as well for consistency. Added. >> When url is a relative reference, it MUST be resolved using the >> current value of the baseURI attribute of the Document object >> currently associated with the Window pointer and the fragment >> identifier component, if any, MUST be dropped. > > Fragments MUST be dropped on relative URLs, but not on absolute URLs??? Fixed. >> If data is passed to the send() method it MUST be used for the >> entity body as defined by section 7.2 of [RFC2616] The following >> rules apply: > > There's a period missing between "[RFC2616]" and "The". (It's also not > clear on first reading if "data is passed to send()" is intended to > contrast with "send(null)" or "send()" with no argument. "If non-null > data is passed..." would be clearer.) Fixed. >> If the response is an HTTP redirect (status code 301, 302, 303 or >> 307), then it MUST be transparently followed (unless it violates >> security, infinite loop precautions or the scheme isn't supported). >> >> Note: HTTP places requirements on user agents regarding the >> preservation of the request method and entity body during >> redirects, and also requires users to be notified of certain kinds >> of automatic redirections. > > It's actually a stronger requirement than just notification: "the user > agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be > confirmed by the user". Might be better to let the implementation just > not follow the redirect in this case: > > If the response is an HTTP redirect (status code 301, 302, 303 > or 307), then it MUST be transparently followed (unless doing so > would violate a requirement or recommendation of this > specification or [RFC2616]). > > or something. It's a note because it doesn't make sense to reiterate the requirements from HTTP. It does clearly list, imo, that it's a requirement in HTTP. >> If something goes wrong [during send] (infinite loop, network errors) >> the state MUST be set to loaded... In addition, all registered event >> listeners MUST be removed. > >> When invoked, this method [abort] MUST cancel any network activity for >> which the object is responsible and set all the members of the object >> to their initial values as well as removing all event listeners. > > Does the onreadystatechange listener get invoked in these two cases? An > implementation that performed the actions in the order written (change > state first, remove event listeners last) would cause the listener to > be invoked, but nothing says that the implementation has to do it in > that order, which seems to make this implementation-defined. Fixed. >> HTTP requests sent from multiple different XMLHttpRequest objects in >> succession SHOULD use a shared HTTP connection. > > How does this deserve an RFC2119 "SHOULD" ("the full implications must > be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different > course.") And why does it only talk about requests from *different* XHR > objects? What about multiple requests from the same object? If you're > going to say anything here, just say "Implementations SHOULD NOT suck" > and be done with it. ;-) Dropped based on a comment from someone else. Cheers, -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 9 March 2007 16:24:04 UTC