Re: <Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC Test Suite

Some quick comments on some of the comments regarding the tests:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote:
>
> http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/009.htm
> 
> When Parsing Error happens, IE would still retain responseXML and put 
> error information on the object.  Isnt this better than null as there’s 
> more relevant information for the web developer?

How does one distinguish a document returned with parse error information 
from one that happens to look like a parse error but was well-formed?

I wouldn't mind including more information but it seems like it should be 
out-of-band.


> http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/001.htm
> 
> The test is expecting us to return NULL in case open() has not been 
> called.  We throw an exception in IE.  I’d pre fer if the spec says 
> “MUST return null OR an exception” otherwise I fear sites today will be 
> broken.

If a site is expecting an exception and gets null, then they'll get an 
exception when they try to dereferene the null, so in most cases it seems 
like this would work anyway.


> http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/012.htm
> http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/013.htm
> 
> This test really doesn’t test XHR here. It seems to be focused on 
> manipulating the XML DOM. (I also don’t think Microsoft.XMLDOM supports 
> getElementById for an XML document FYI). Also, if I'm barking up the 
> wrong tree here please let me know!

I think it's important that we test that the DOM returned from XHR is DOM 
Core conformant just like any other, so this seems like an important and 
relevant testing area for XHR.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'