- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:54:29 -0400
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Darin Fisher <darin@google.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>
On 10/25/10 7:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > Can you think of any use cases where a developer would need both though? Most any use case where there are multiple developers involved (page + library, multiple people working on scripts in the page, whatever) and some want the bytes and others blindly check the responseText. Other possibilities include situations where the developer would like the responseText in general but wants to look at what the actual bytes were if the responseText ends up with U+FFFD in it... But the multiple developers thing is a much bigger issue for me. > The parameter would be added to .open() (after username and password). > This means you'd have to pass in undefined for both in most uses. And > it has the disadvantage you mentioned for #2. Sounds like it, yes. -Boris
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 23:55:04 UTC