- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:03:27 +0900
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:34:42 +0900, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > It looks ok to me, though somewhat lacking on details. What happens if > you call > > x = new XMLHttpRequest("foopy"); > or > x = new XMLHttpRequest(undefined); See Web IDL. > You should probably define that the 'anon' argument is a boolean so > that the normal conversion rules automatically are applied. See the Web IDL fragment in the specification. > I'm also wondering if the UMP guys are happy with this syntax. I haven't gotten feedback on it so far. >>> There has been suggestions of changing header names. I'm not a big fan >>> of the current names, but if we're going to fix them, i'd rather see a >>> coherent strategy for all CORS headers than random spot fixes. >> >> Does that mean you would be willing to remove support for the current >> header >> names? If not I'm not sure if it is worth it. But if you are I will >> make a >> proposal. > > Yeah, the goal would definitely be to drop the old header names. We > probably couldn't drop them right away, but would need a phase-out > period. I think this would still be doable, but the longer we wait the > less that is going to be true. > > Also, it requires everyone to be on board with this change, including > webkit and Microsoft. Okay. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 05:04:12 UTC