- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:50:11 +0100
- To: Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Following up to a mail from May 2008: Julian Reschke wrote: > Sunava Dutta wrote: >> ... >>> At this point, I'm not sure why we're bothering with XHR1 at all. It is >>> *not* what the current implementations do anyway. >> [Sunava Dutta] I'm sorry, this statement is concerning and I'd like to >> understand it better. We haven’t had a chance to run the latest test >> suite yet but expect the test suite to be compliant with at least two >> existing implementations. Do you mean the XHR 1 draft is not >> interoperable with existing implementations? >> ... > > Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it > turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of > the browsers works as specified. > > Examples: > > - Support for HTTP extension methods: IE violates the SHOULD level > requirement to support extenstion methods. Opera silently (!!!) changes > extension method names to "POST". > ... Just rechecked... IE8beta: no improvement -- only the methods in RFC2518 are are supported, the remaining methods (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-01.html>), not to mention future methods, are unsupported. Opera 10: only a small improvement; unknown method names are now changed to "GET" (still silently!!!). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 10:50:53 UTC