- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:18:03 -0400
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: arun@mozilla.com, public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:25:09 -0400, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Michael A. Puls > II<shadow2531@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> But, it seems the error progress event doesn't give any error info. >>> >>> Well, it does give error information, but in the cryptic form of >>> event.target.status=200 meaning ok, a null event.target.responseXML >>> meaning there was a parse error, etc. Far from optimal I agree. >> >> That doesn't seem to work right. For a parse error for example, 'load' >> still >> fires and 'error' doesn't. responseXML isn't null (in Safari it is >> though) >> and you still get the old <parsererror> for a documentElement. (I know >> how >> to check for the parsererror namespace) >> >> For file: situations where 'error' does fire, it seems that e.status is >> 0, >> which means something went wrong, but it's not very revealing. > > Indeed, I'm sure there are bugs aplenty here. But that's more due to > buggy implementations than shortcomings in the specs. Best way to get > movement there is to file bugs with testcases (well, even better would > be to attach patches as well :) ). Understdood. > However note that I'm not sure that failing to parse should fire an > error event. For someone only caring about responseText things loaded > just fine. (I think I actually changed firefox from what you describe > to what I describe sometime after Firefox 2, for this very reason). > The "XML" part of the name "XMLHttpRequest" was never very true. Ah, understood. I think I could work around that by checking responseXML to see if it's right. If it's not, perhaps I could manually dispatch an 'error', if there's a way to manually, create and init a progress event so that you can dispatch it. Will play with that. Thanks -- Michael
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:18:46 UTC