On Mon, 12 May 2008 01:08:48 +0200, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so just so I'm clear, does the following example snippet
accurately reflect how you propose that things work?
var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.open(GET, example, true);
req.onreadystatechange = handleResult;
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, XMLHttpRequest Level 2 already has this functionality in the form of
responseBody:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
(send() is also accepts a ByteArray now.)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.
On May 12, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
What are the remaining issues that are still holding us back? It
seems to me like if we know we're going to add this in a version
2, but we already have a done specification for it, why not
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
In relation to the NSResolver, the major issue is that I need to
define how to handle hostile NSResolvers and deal with unexpected DOM
modifications.
I don't actually think there is a lot to do
* Francois Daoust wrote:
In the context of content transformation that is a problem because such
HTTP messages should be passed untouched by the content transformation
proxies: an XHR call involves that some client code will be run on
receipt of the response, so any transformation is likely to
On May 12, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
A function is not a particularly convenient way to specify a
namespace
mapping, and it creates these error handling issues as well as
causing
problems with case (in)sensitivity. Even though NSResolver is what
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:23:48 +0200, Innovimax SARL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
s/accordng/according/
s/targated/targeted/
Thanks, fixed:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:49:44 +0200, Peter Michaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The XMLHttpRequest spec says The setRequestHeader() method appends a
value if the HTTP header given as argument is already part of the list
of request headers.
This is fine but what is a problem is whether or not a new
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:31:37 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The whole append semantics is problematic as long as the user can't
find out what the current value is.
IMHO we need either removeRequestHeader(), getRequestHeader(), or both.
Yes, you have already stated this
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
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:20:48 +0200, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lachlan Hunt:
The XMLHttpRequest spec doesn't actually define what object is returned
by the XMLHttpRequest() constructor. It should define that an object
implementing the XMLHttpRequest interface must be created
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:44:00 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the XMLHttpRequest specification, section 4 The XMLHttpRequest
Object, please describe the meaning/purpose of the send() flag and error
flag. Currently, it seems the only way to find out what each value
On May 12, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This does not look much better (it does avoid repeatedly mentioning
the xmlns namespace at least):
function resolver(prefix) {
if (prefix == xht) {
return http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml;;
} else if
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:31:37 +0200, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole append semantics is problematic as long as the user can't
find out what the current value is.
IMHO we need either removeRequestHeader(), getRequestHeader(), or both.
Yes, you have
Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:08:37 +0200, Stewart Brodie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last paragraph on send(data) (i.e. just above the start of the
bit
about the abort() method), there is a statement (which is missing the
word header at the
On Sun, 04 May 2008 11:47:13 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Review of http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20080415/.
General points:
a) I'm confused about the approach to this document. On the one hand,
we're being told that it can't define anything not already in
On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:38:30 +0200, Francois Daoust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the context of content transformation that is a problem because such
HTTP messages should be passed untouched by the content transformation
proxies: an XHR call involves that some client code will be run on
On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:48:48 +0200, Stewart Brodie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason I suggested forcing implementations to use */* as the
value for an automatically added header is that it preserves the
semantics of the request, since this is the default to be assumed by
HTTP
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*
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:18:38 +0200, Robert Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Should there not be a dedicated method to create a Document (XMLDOM)
without having to submit a call first.
E.g. [XMLHttpRequest].createDocument()
This way one could create a Document to send (as well as retrieve one)
On May 12, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
You can just use `function(p) { return namespaces[p]; }` then.
Sure, but there's no actual need to allow running arbitrary code and
all the risks that creates/
Which is no risks at all. You can simply parse
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
(There are other problems with using an object like the one you propose,
like being unable to specify a default namespace, unless you introduce
some kind of magic prefix representing the default namespace; ultimately
* Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Let ns be an empty hash map, where the key is the prefix and the value
is the namespace uri.
Tokenise the nsresolver string by splitting on whitespace.
For each token:
If there is an '=' character in the string:
Split the string on the first '=' character
Let
Comments inline. Thanks,
-Original Message-
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Sunava Dutta
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org; Gideon Cohn; Ahmed Kamel; Zhenbin Xu; Doug
Stamper
Subject: Re: XHR LC Draft Feedback
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
A function is not a particularly convenient way to specify a namespace
mapping, and it creates these error handling issues as well as causing
problems with case (in)sensitivity. Even though NSResolver is what XPath
uses, wouldn't it be
On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:27:05 +0200, Sunava Dutta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Mentioning for each header the reasons for restriction. (I
think security is paramount but for shipped implementations I would
hesitate to reduce surface area of attack unless there is a compelling
reason.
Hi Anne.
Anne van Kesteren:
How would that look on the interface?
[Constructor] interface XMLHttpRequest { ... };
?
Yep.
Should the Bindings spec require that the constructor return an object
that implements that interface?
That would make sense I think.
OK.
Also, when will Web
var ns = http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml svg=http://www.w3.org/2000/svg;
.querySelector(p svg|svg, ns);
Let ns be an empty hash map, where the key is the prefix and the value
is the namespace uri.
Tokenise the nsresolver string by splitting on whitespace.
For each token:
If there is an '='
On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:48:27 +0200, Jean-Yves Bitterlich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I understood that prio 1 item on the july 1st-3rd agenda is going to be
XHR2 (XDR... input). What other items are (known to be) on the agenda ?
(probably 3 days are anyway just enough to finalize
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:48:27 +0200, Jean-Yves Bitterlich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I understood that prio 1 item on the july 1st-3rd agenda is going to
be XHR2 (XDR... input). What other items are (known to be) on the
agenda ? (probably 3 days are
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Francois Daoust wrote:
In the context of content transformation that is a problem because such
HTTP messages should be passed untouched by the content transformation
proxies: an XHR call involves that some client code will be run on
receipt of the response, so any
31 matches
Mail list logo
