Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In IE you can at least test for .status == 200 to test if things worked
out ok. Even though the statuscode for various errors seem to be weird to
say the least, at least they are different from the success codes.
I actually think this is how we should do
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
That's the purpose of the global scope object, which is an ECMAScript
concept. As specced, the Window interface (it's not an object) is just
something that the global scope object implements.
Agreed, it shouldn't say the main purpose.
If we do go to state 4 then things will look almost exactly like a
successful response. The only difference is that .responseXML will be
null, but that is already the case for a lot of consumers that send
non-xml data.
I'd sort of disagree, the problem will manifest itself by the result not
Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem is that many formats can't detect that they have been cut off.
Even for something as strict as XML you could be loosing comments and PIs
at the end of the document if the transation is terminated. The reason
responseXML would be null in mozilla is
Jim Ley wrote:
Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In IE you can at least test for .status == 200 to test if things
worked out ok. Even though the statuscode for various errors seem to
be weird to say the least, at least they are different from the
success codes.
I actually think this is how
Christophe Jolif [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even though you can always imagine to find solution to workaround it. I
think it is a bad idea to go to 4 without having a clear knowledge of what
the status really is (successful or erroneous). Indeed bad or null XML can
be due to a bug on the server, not
On Apr 13, 2006, at 01:29, Web APIs Issue Tracker wrote:
Should we define if or how the Window objects participates in the
event
propagation? At least Firefox makes the Window object implement
EventTarget and
puts it above the Document node in the propagation chain.
Yes, it should be
On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Web APIs Issue Tracker wrote:
ISSUE-76: Shoud window participate in event propagation
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/webapi/issues/76
Raised by: Jonas Sicking
On product: Window
Should we define if or how the Window objects participates in the
event
Jim Ley wrote:
Christophe Jolif [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even though you can always imagine to find solution to workaround it.
I think it is a bad idea to go to 4 without having a clear knowledge
of what the status really is (successful or erroneous). Indeed bad or
null XML can be due to a bug on
The problem is that many formats can't detect that they have been cut
off. Even for something as strict as XML you could be loosing comments
and PIs at the end of the document if the transation is terminated.
The reason responseXML would be null in mozilla is that we'd get an
internal
Hi,
This is a QA Review comment for Window Object 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-Window-20060407/
Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:19:28 GMT
First WD
[[[
The Window object is a long-standing de facto standard for HTML user
agents.
]]]
and
[[[
The Window Object 1.0 specification defines a subset of
11 matches
Mail list logo
