- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 18:49:11 +0200
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>, "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 12:10:55 PM, Anne wrote: AvK> On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:16:57 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> AvK> wrote: >> 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. AvK> That makes sense. I added a "conforming XML user agent" class. I hope this AvK> satisfies the people who replied in this thread (all in To:). That works for me. Higher-level specs that normatively refer to XHR can always mandate that optional conformance class. AvK> (I'm treating the comment from Stewart Brodie as a separate comment.) -- 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 Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:49:51 UTC