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 we should do errorhandling for now since
that should work with most existing content.
I would be content with this, but no-one else appeared to be in Oslo.
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
being parseable as expected, as you say a null XML document is a
perfectly fine indicator of failure for XML expecting people - those
sending json will get a script error, those getting some other
structured format won't be able to parse it etc.
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 necessarily a network error!
--
Christophe
