Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:42 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:26:07 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: - On the send algorithm, step 4 (If stored method is GET act as if the data argument

Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:42 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:26:07 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: - On the send algorithm, step 4 (If stored method is GET act as

Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:26:07 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: - On the send algorithm, step 4 (If stored method is GET act as if the data argument is null), why only GET and not HEAD, also? In order to subset HTTP as little as

Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:58:55 +0200, Sergiu Dumitriu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if this was asked already but: - Why doesn't a redirect that violates the security restrictions throw SECURITY_ERR, instead of NETWORK_ERR? This makes it more forward-consistent with XMLHttpRequest Level 2

Re: [XHR] Comments on the latest public working draft

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:26:07 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: - On the send algorithm, step 4 (If stored method is GET act as if the data argument is null), why only GET and not HEAD, also? In order to subset HTTP as little as possible. Well, *if*