Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call

" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: We still do not have anyway to advice user agents of long-lived responses in order to avoid the problem of indefinitely queued

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call

al Message - From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: "Web API WG (public)" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:40 PM Subject: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call Hi, The Web API WG resolved yesterday to publish a Last Call Working Draft of The XMLHttpRequest

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call

start complaining of problems. Thank you, Kris - Original Message - From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Web API WG (public)" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:40 PM Subject: [XMLHttpRequest] Last Call Hi, The Web API WG resolved yesterday to publi

[XMLHttpRequest] Last Call

Hi, The Web API WG resolved yesterday to publish a Last Call Working Draft of The XMLHttpRequest Object specification. Thanks to the webmasters at the W3C it was published earlier today. Last Call comments can be made until 2 June 2008. (Please don't comment about the "befor" typo there. M

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:05:26 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It now says: "If the header argument is in the list of request headers the user agent must either use multiple headers, combine the values or use a combination of those (section 4.2, RFC 2616) and abort these st

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

Anne van Kesteren schrieb: On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:29:36 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do agree that this is a good rule, but as far as I can tell, you really need to state this (this==compliant implementations must implement all MUST-level requirements). Why? It seems

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:25:32 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I added these, but I'm not convinced this list is a good idea anymore... Firefox seems to always replace, Internet Explorer always merges headers. Only Opera seems to have the logic as described by the specificat

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:29:36 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do agree that this is a good rule, but as far as I can tell, you really need to state this (this==compliant implementations must implement all MUST-level requirements). Why? 2.1. Members of the XMLHttpReque

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

On 3/20/07 12:29 AM, "Julian Reschke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Feedback indicated that they should all be in the list, yes. > > So do we have evidence of enough broken content using lowercased method > names so that this special case makes sense? When we tried to remove this quirk from W

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >I added these, but I'm not convinced this list is a good idea anymore... >Firefox seems to always replace, Internet Explorer always merges headers. >Only Opera seems to have the logic as described by the specification. Not >sure about Safari. Tests are here: > >

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

Anne van Kesteren schrieb: On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:50:13 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1.2 Conformance "conforming implementation A user agent must behave as described in this specification in order to be considered conformant even when faced with non-conforming scri

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:50:13 +0100, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1.2 Conformance "conforming implementation A user agent must behave as described in this specification in order to be considered conformant even when faced with non-conforming scripts." So is an implement

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

Bjoern Hoehrmann schrieb: * Julian Reschke wrote: "The syntax for the user or password arguments depends on the scheme being used. If the syntax for either is incorrect per the production given in the relevant scheme user agents must throw a SYNTAX_ERR exception. The user and password must be

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

* Julian Reschke wrote: >"The syntax for the user or password arguments depends on the scheme >being used. If the syntax for either is incorrect per the production >given in the relevant scheme user agents must throw a SYNTAX_ERR >exception. The user and password must be encoded using the encod

[XMLHttpRequest] last call comments

Hi all, See below my updated set of comments (some of the previously mentioned problems have been fixed, thanks for that). Best regards, Julian -- snip -- Review of . 1.2 Conformance "conforming implementation A user agent must