- From: Chris Holland <frenchy@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:42:25 -0800
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:14:52 +0000, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 01:31:50 -0800, Chris Holland <frenchy at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:57:12 +0000, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote: > >If the User Agent is a traditional web > > browser, the only way a given document could ever initiate a request > > to a host different from the one that served it, would be through a > > ContextAgnosticHttpRequest (i'm liking this name less and less, sorry > > about that), and this request would infallibly send, in every request, > > the full URI of the document initiating the request, as the value of > > the "Referer" header. > > Are you sure you're not advocating this to get around privacy based > proxies of the type that normally disable such referrer based content > so as to reliably block > privacy invasions? > well, if a proxy starts filtering out http headers sent by the client, there isn't much we can do about that now is there. heh. > > > Please don't have any solution that limits the user to XML, it's a > > > pointless arbritrary restriction that offers nothing but serious > > > performance hits to the client, and complications to the user. > > > > well it would appear XML validity already is a restriction, but okee. > > Nope, there's no such restriction, and very few of the implementations > that I know of that use xmlhttprequest on websites use XML. > ... ok ... google maps does. a9 does. ask jeeves does. but ok, fair enough, many other developers just may not. anyway, i should have left this issue to another debate in the first place, it shouldn't really affect design for this feature. thanks for the feedback! :) -chris -- Chris Holland http://chrisholland.blogspot.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 08:42:25 UTC