- From: Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:47:03 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 2:32 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: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] > >> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 2:05 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: > >>> > >>>> -----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. > >> > >> Which other parts of the spec is it inconsistent with. I definitely > >> agree that consistency is important. Looking at the spec it seems > like > >> returning null is consistent with .responseText, but not consistent > >> with > >> .status and .getResponseHeader(). > >> > >> Ideally we should have consistency across all these properties. > >> > > > > [Zhenbin Xu] .statusText, .getAllResponseHeaders(), send() all raise > > INVALID_STATE_ERR as well. > > So if we can change .responseText to also throw an exception then I'd > be > fine with having .responseXML also throw. > [Zhenbin Xu] Sounds good. Thanks! > / Jonas
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 21:48:32 UTC