Re: XHR HTTP method support, Re: XHR LC comments

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 
> (<>), 
> 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