- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:35:21 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0409301709190.14396@dhalsim.dreamhost.com... > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Peter Sorotokin wrote: >> >> Yes, we indeed modeled URLRequest after XMLHttpRequest, it is designed >> to be basically just as simple to use with just a little bit of extra >> power. Everyone who used XMLHttpRequest or IE's MS.XMLHTTP should feel >> right at home. > > Given that XMLHttpRequest has multiple interoperable implementations (at > least four, so far, It has 3 almost interopable ones, and one very buggy partial implementation (the Opera one - I'm sure that'll cone along soon though, it's certainly not interopable yet). >on at least half a dozen different platforms), was any > thought given to just using XMLHttpRequest outright? how would that work, would they take the Mozilla implementation or the IE implementation (it's not an identical copy)? There are problems with the xmlhttp request object which make it difficult to specify, and certainly difficult to implement outside of ECMAScript. I also particularly much prefer the URLRequest events using the normal event model than anything else. > It would be unfortunate if implementations that support both SVG and HTML > had to implement both interfaces. but one is a a pretty strict subset of the other, so it's a trivial wrapper - in Mozilla you could easily do it purely in XBL, just like parseXML, printNode, getURL and postURL the overhead is virtually nil, so what's wrong with supporting both? In any case the URLRequest object is part of SVGWindow, whereas the HTTPRequest object, well who knows what that's part of, Mozilla certainly has different ideas to IE. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 17:37:37 UTC