- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:49:18 +0100
- To: "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 an email from Feb 2009: Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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 I just checked Opera 10.5 beta (on Windows): unknown method names *still* are silently rewritten as GET. Oh my. Remind me: what's the purpose of the W3C working on an XHR spec if even well-documented bugs like this do not get fixed by implementers? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 15:49:58 UTC