Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:47:37 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> 3) The spec as written doesn't "state nothing", it appears to clearly > >> require sending an entity body and does not allow ignoring the body or > >> throwing an exception regardless of what is allowed per RFC. So some > >> change is needed, one way or another. > > > > Ok. How about we add a step 5 of the send() algorithm that states that > > additional requirements in RFC 2616 are also to be taken into account. > > That should effectively defer the issue to RFC 2616. > > Does any currently released browse include the body when doing an XHR > GET request? If a big majority of them currently drop the body, then it > seems like it would help interoperability if the spec explicitly stated > that the body should be dropped. > > IMHO this wouldn't be going against RFC 2616 as it's the application, > not the network layer, that drops the body.
Under no circumstances will my code permit an entity body to be sent as part of a request for an object that is going to be requested via GET or HEAD. It's just asking for trouble. It also will not permit related headers to be set (Content-Length, Transfer-Encoding et al will be dropped) I never understood what I should do when an XMLHttpRequest object is presented with data to send and the method was GET or HEAD. Currently, I convert the data to a UTF-8 string and store it as the query field of the URI, as that seemed the most useful thing to do (particularly the the data attribute was a string or something that was easily stringified). I did briefly also consider automatically converting the method to POST, but decided that that was simply dangerous. -- Stewart Brodie Software Engineer ANT Software Limited