Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 12:11:38 AM, Innovimax wrote:

IS> I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that
IS> does not support XML at all !!

As others have commented - XMLHttpRequest. Apart from the fact that
its unrelated to XML, not restricted to HTTP and not restricted to
requests, its a great name :)

I agree that an XHR with no XML support does not make sense. Which
means XML must be supported. On the other hand, that does not mean
that XML is the only content that can be transported with it.

(In some ways the legacy SVG APIs - GetUrl, ParseXML and PostUrl -
avoided this naming issue).

IS> On 5/7/07, Maciej Stachowiak < mjs@apple.com> wrote:

IS> On May 7, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: 

>>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL
>> <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Does it mean a conformant implementation could support NO 
>>>>> version of
>>>>> XML?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in theory.
>>>
>>> Isn't there any possibility to put it other way such that at least
>>> one
>>> version must be supported ? 
>>
>> I'm not sure how that would be an advantage for people using
>> wanting to implement this API in some obscure language. At some
>> point when we get responseBody this will become a relatively simple 
>> API to do HTTP stuff with. I don't think we should mandate XML
>> support for that. It makes sense to support it though, hence it
>> already is a "SHOULD" for fostering interoperability.
IS>  
IS> Can we define a conformance class for implementations that support
IS> XML parsing, so that we can have MUST-level requirements and a test
IS> suite for that conformance class? This seems better to me than a SHOULD.
IS>  
IS> Regards,
IS> Maciej









-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 22:23:33 UTC