Re: [XHR] (Late) LC Comments

On 12 Jun 2008, at 13:55, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> ...
>> I think it would be better if HTTP defined what clients should  
>> assume (200 and OK most likely) in case the response data does not  
>> include it. Your HTTP parsing specification could do this for  
>> instance.
>> ...
> In HTTP/1.*, the status code is what the response says, and the  
> status text is purely decorative. If it's not there, it's not there.  
> Claiming it was "OK" would be misleading.

Still, throwing INVALID_STATUS_ERR seems to defy logic, and current  

> WRT earlier HTTP versions: how would care?

s/how/who/, I assume?

There's still (amazingly) a number of servers that do still have HTTP/ 
0.9 behaviour, and support _is_ still needed. The behaviour  
everywhere, as far as I can tell, it to just return 200/OK.

Geoffrey Sneddon

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 19:17:30 UTC