W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2006

Re: some questions about RFC3986

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:39:35 +0100
To: "Mike Brown" <mike@skew.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tiig391p64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:54:53 +0100, Mike Brown <mike@skew.org> wrote:
>> I'm trying to understand how section 4.4 of http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986
>> applies to XMLHttpRequest. Specifically, I'm having trouble with the
>> following things:
>>
>> * What does the "should" entail (no conformance critera, RFC2119, etc.);
>> * Definition of classes of products;
>> * "retrieval action" seems undefined.
>
> RFC 3986 / STD 66 is just saying that there is a class of URI refs that
> are considered "same-document" refs, and applications that make use of
> representations of documents containing such refs should take that into
> consideration.

Thanks for your reply, but I don't see how this answers my questions.


> [...] You should not expect that a new representation (a new, separate  
> byte string) would be sought to fulfill that dereference, though it  
> wouldn't be breaking any rules to do so.

So you're saying the should requirement on user agents can be safely  
ignored (by user agents)? I suppose it can, given that there's no RFC2119  
reference... It would solve the problem at least.


> What are you encountering in the behavior of XHR that's causing you  
> concern?

Well, imagine a same-document reference request from the XMLHttpRequest  
object. Would you get back some cached document, the current DOM or a new  
instance of the document freshly loaded from the server?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 21:39:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC