Re: XHR LC comments

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Boris Zbarsky wrote: Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: Being able to send wf-but-ns-illformed documents would not make much sense if you couldn't also read them back in Which you can, with a non-NS-aware XML parser. My point was that the XHR draft currently requires using a

Re: XHR LC comments

On Mon, 19 May 2008 05:07:52 +0200, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and you can rather easily check for ns-wf during serialization if you implement the serialization yourself Perhaps. This is less clear to me. In particular, it's not that clear to me that its trivial to decide

Re: XHR LC comments

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: On the server side? No, I was simply trying to say XHR should not generate output it cannot parse itself. Either it generates and parses a document, or it neither generates nor parses a document. If there was a parameter to set, like LSParser.domConfig.namespaces, to

Re: XHR LC comment: Accept header went from MUST NOT to SHOULD

Stewart Brodie wrote: If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!), fix it. Some older versions of Microsoft IIS are the servers that I've come across that fail to cope with it. It is unrealistic to expect these to be undeployed any time soon. The comment in my code does not specify

Re: [XHR] referencing HTML5

Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 May 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: If yes, then XHR can't be published earlier. If no, let's rephrase stuff so that HTML5 isn't required. No, this isn't accurate. We can publish XHR whenever we like. The only thing that would stop us is

Re: XHR LC comment: Accept header went from MUST NOT to SHOULD

Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonas Sicking wrote: ... If */* is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the former. ... I would prefer not to silently change what the client requested.

Re: XHR LC comment: Accept header went from MUST NOT to SHOULD

Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stewart Brodie wrote: If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!), fix it. Some older versions of Microsoft IIS are the servers that I've come across that fail to cope with it. It is unrealistic to expect these to be undeployed any time

Re: XHR LC comments

Simon Pieters wrote: FWIW, this is defined for getting innerHTML in XML: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-dynamic.html#innerhtml1 That's more like what I was looking for, yes. I would be happy if XHR adopted that approach. -Boris

Re: File IO...

On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:39:01 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Opera has a proposal for a specification that would revive (and supersede) the file upload API that has been lingering so long as a work item. ... A draft is at

RE: XHR LC comments

Inline... -Original Message- From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 5:45 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Sunava Dutta; Web API WG (public) Subject: Re: XHR LC comments On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:23:24 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL

Re: XHR LC comments

Sunava Dutta wrote: I think you mean compatible with browsers who enable the technologies when you mean compatible with the web? Compatible with the web means that when a UA implements the specification as written it will encounter either no reports of pages broken due to that

Re: XHR LC comments

Sunava Dutta wrote: Inline... -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:14 PM To: Sunava Dutta Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Julian Reschke; Maciej Stachowiak; Web API WG (public); IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team Subject: Re: XHR LC comments

RE: XHR LC comments

Inline... -Original Message- From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:04 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: Sunava Dutta; Anne van Kesteren; Web API WG (public) Subject: Re: XHR LC comments On May 17, 2008, at 1:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: