On Feb 22, 2007, at 09:50, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
I would suggest to remove (the XML declaration) since xmlEncoding is
not the XML declaration, and turning it into e.g. (as derived from
the
XML declaration) is unnecessarily long. The last sentence is not
really
appropriate for XML
On 2/26/07 5:29 PM, Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there needs to be a node clearly stating that even if you try
to send a HTMLDocument, it will be serialized as if it were XML.
Agreed. Does the XHTML namespace get added automagically?
It is not added by Firefox or Opera.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:29:14 +0100, Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would suggest to remove (the XML declaration) since xmlEncoding is
not the XML declaration, and turning it into e.g. (as derived from the
XML declaration) is unnecessarily long. The last sentence is not really
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:04:09 +0100, Alexey Proskuryakov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not really obvious to me why this is even desirable - isn't it
easier to serve as XHTML in cases when responseXML is needed? After all,
XMLHttpRequest is not a general purpose HTTP library, so we don't need
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think it actually is a general purpose HTTP library, despite the name.
(For ECMAScript anyway.)
A general purpose HTTP library would need to, at the very least, allow
me to download bitmap graphics. As currently proposed, XHR can not.
--
Björn Höhrmann ·
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:34:44 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it actually is a general purpose HTTP library, despite the name.
(For ECMAScript anyway.)
A general purpose HTTP library would need to, at the very least, allow
me to download bitmap graphics. As currently
On 2/26/07 3:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But should we really make it be like that? Once HTML5 is there we probably
want .responseXML to work for text/html documents as well and we probably
want the encoding to be derived the same way HTML5 specifies it should be
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:43:25 +0100, Alexey Proskuryakov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another consideration: architecturally, it may be unwise to combine both
loading and parsing functionality in a single API.
Agreed, but that's how it is.
For XML parsing, DOM3 Load (or another dedicated API)
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
For XML parsing, DOM3 Load (or another dedicated API) could provide
much more control. Obviously, we cannot remove responseXML from
XMLHttpRequest, but not adding more known formats sounds like a good
idea to me.
Is such control really needed? For most people
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:57:10 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, does any of the existing implementations support parsing HTML and
returning an XML DOM? And why would you want to do that in the first
place?
FWIW, there's no such thing as an XML DOM as far as browsers are
Hi folks,
I am pleased to announce that the Web API group has published a Last Call
Working Draft of XML HTTP Request at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20070227/
The Abstract and Status of the Document sections are reproduced at the end of
this mail.
This draft is for public
11 matches
Mail list logo
