On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:33:24 -0400, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.me...@oracle.com
> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
4. If file:// access isn't implemented (like in IE), don't have
open() throw. Instead, make this.status be 501.
This is a breaking change to the XHR spec which asks to throw an
error. Have you considered the effect of making the proposed change?
Yes.
Then perhaps this proposal is moot. Who would really care to change
their XHR code to deal with a change that gives them no benefit? This
is assuming that those who have written http:// code are not currently
using file: - which practically is the audience you have today.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
"8. Don't have open() throw for cross-domain security restriction.
Instead,
use status code 403."
does the same.
I could live without those changes as long as there was information
for the security_err exception so that you could tell the difference
between the 2.
Of course, the "Easier Alternative:" I mentioned in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0686.html
> might be a better way to do things.
--
Michael
