On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:47:50 +0200, Brad Fults <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I fail to see where the conformance requirements for the url parameter are specified anywhere within the above quoted text.
Well, the user agent requirements are clear imho. I suppose we could have some author requirements in there as well.
[...] Not to be absurd, but as the referenced draft [1] currently stands, an implementor could allow only RFC 2616 URL strings specified in reverse order (e.g. "/moc.elgoog.www//:ptth") and it would be completely conformant to the XMLHttpRequest specification. This seems undesirable.
I don't see how it would be conformant. If it's a valid relative reference it would have to be resolved against the base URI (as indicated) and otherwise it should throw.
[...] It would seem to me that support for the HTTP and HTTPS URL schemes should be required, leaving room for other schemes as optional.
I'll add that to the issue list. As well as author requirements... Thanks.
[1] - http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#dfn-open
-- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
