On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:29:47 +0200, Steve K Speicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Is this stating that a server responding to an XMLHttpRequest load or
such, must know if the user agent supports XML (including support for
namespaces) and respond with null or is it up to the conforming user
agent to decide if it supports XML and whether to always sets the
response to
null?
The user agent, as Maciej indicated. I made this a bit more clear in the
draft but as noted in another e-mail that has not yet been comitted due to
problems with the spec generator.
2) #dependencies for "DOM", "Window", "HTTP":
I find the phrasing of: "must support some version of DOM Events and DOM
Core " to be very confusing. Then there is a reference (normative?) to
DOM3 Core and Events. So the "some version" really DOM Level 3 or is DOM
Level 0 ok, as it is *some verson* of DOM?
This wording exists for: DOM, Window, HTTP which seems a bit vague. I'd
suggest that it clearly define a minimum level to support: say DOM Level
3 Core, etc.
It's intended to be vague, as full support is not needed at all in order
to claim conformance to the XMLHttpRequest specification. I'm not sure how
to say that in an accurate way though, suggestions welcome.
3) #terminology
In what context is this matching scheme used or needed?
open(), setRequestHeader() etc.
This section seems to discuss string casing and equivalency of characters
in ASCII only charsets, it seems that is should consider matching defined
by some internationalized context [2]
The strings it deals with are all related to HTTP and HTTP does
case-insensitive matching per ASCII conventions.
4) #xmlhttprequest
This section uses terms such as "successfully invoked" and "user agent
successfully acknowledged the request", though was unable to find
definitions of how success was defined.
That's because these are used as descriptions there, not as normative
definitions. The actual state transitions are detailed in the algorithms.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
