- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:36:09 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 31.10.2010 14:27, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 26.10.2010 12:12, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> ... >>> If they were exposed via getResponseHeader() you would have the >>> potential for clashes so that does not seem like a good idea. >>> ... >> >> The clashes would be the same as for any repeating header, right? > > Pre-existing XHR code might get confused if the results from getResponseHeader() change in the course of loading more of the stream. Seems safer to keep it separate, if it is useful to pass this info at all. Also, header fields like Content-Type are probably not going to have their usual effect if sent as trailers. So it's good to distinguish for that reason too. In which case it might be a good idea to allow the caller to opt-in to the use of trailers in the request... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 31 October 2010 13:36:46 UTC