RE: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was: Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC Test Suite

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:19 PM
> To: Zhenbin Xu
> Cc: Sunava Dutta; Ian Hickson; public-webapps@w3.org; IE8 Core AJAX
> SWAT Team
> Subject: Re: <New: Tracking Issues in XHR that we raised>RE: <Was:
> Further LC Followup from IE> RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR LC
> Test Suite
>
> Zhenbin Xu wrote:
> > Jonas, I don't feel you have summarized our position properly.  We
> > said it should be exception but we are willing to accommodate other
> > implementations for the spec to have a leeway there and avoiding
> > protracted discussions.
>
> I assume you mean by the "null or exception" proposal? I think many
> people have made it quite clear that they think that is the least good
> solution as it doesn't produce interoperability across browsers.
>
> > We have absolutely no problem for the spec to
> > clearly state that exception is the best API that should be followed.
>
> Hehe, yes, that has been quite clear :)
>
> > It is backed by technical arguments on my replies.  Let's expand more
> > there if you feel those are inadequate.
>
> Yes please do, I'm curious as to what those technical arguments are.
> The
> one I've heard so far is concern about site compatibility with
> returning
> null. I.e. you guys are concerned that sites will break if an exception
> isn't thrown.
>

[Zhenbin Xu]  We are concerned because returning null is not a consistent,
predictable programming model. It is a deviation from other part of the XHR
design, as well as the state machine approach that entire spec is based on.

I believe this has been adequately discussed in my earlier replies.




> Are there other ones? Do you have any data to back up the compatibility
> concern?
>
> / Jonas

Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 20:49:37 UTC