Carsten Orthbandt wrote:
... The currently published version at http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ says in section 2.1 responseXML that ...
"Published" in the sense of "work in progress". Don't rely on these things.
... So what do I want? - I'd like to avoid the implied header overhead of Content-Type for protocols that don't use XML.
You're violating a SHOULD level requirement of HTTP/1.1 then. Sorry, but that's what you get for that :-).
- I definately dont want to see future browsers choke on that
Actually, I'm tempted to say it would be good for the web if more UAs would flag missing content-type headers.
...
Best regards, Julian
