I agree that it seems strange to have an "XML"HttpRequest that does not support XML at all !!
On 5/7/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 7, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Does it mean a conformant implementation could support NO >>>> version of >>>> XML? >>> >>> Yes, in theory. >> >> Isn't there any possibility to put it other way such that at least >> one >> version must be supported ? > > I'm not sure how that would be an advantage for people using > wanting to implement this API in some obscure language. At some > point when we get responseBody this will become a relatively simple > API to do HTTP stuff with. I don't think we should mandate XML > support for that. It makes sense to support it though, hence it > already is a "SHOULD" for fostering interoperability. Can we define a conformance class for implementations that support XML parsing, so that we can have MUST-level requirements and a test suite for that conformance class? This seems better to me than a SHOULD. Regards, Maciej
-- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
