Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments

On May 7, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:

> Maciej,
> Maybe it's OK for the XHR spec itself to not require XML support,  
> but instead have other higher-level document format specs such as  
> HTML5 and/or some future version of SVG require that  
> implementations support not only XHR but also XML over XHR. Within  
> the XHR spec itself, perhaps there could be an informative comment  
> that indicates that there is an expectation that, when used with  
> languages such as HTML or SVG, XML support would be included.
I want implementation of conformance for use of XHR with XML to be in  
someone's test suite. It seems simplest to put it in the XHR test  
suite. Therefore it needs to be a normative requirement for some  
conformance class. I don't think this creates a problem for anyone as  
long as there is also a non-XML-supporting conformance class.

Regards,
Maciej

>
> Jon
>
> <graycol.gif>
> Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>
>
> Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> Sent by: public-webapi-request@w3.org
> 05/07/2007 04:16 PM
>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> To
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> cc
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Subject
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Re: The XMLHttpRequest Object comments
> <ecblank.gif>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
>
>
> On May 7, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Innovimax SARL wrote:
>
> > I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that does
> > not support XML at all !!
>
> I don't necessarily agree with that, I can see that non-XML UAs may
> still want to support it only for transmitting text. But I think
> there should be a conformance class that does include the XML
> support, even if the baseline conforming implementation doesn't.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>