XHR HTTP method support, Re: XHR LC comments

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 
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