Sunava Dutta wrote:
...
At this point, I'm not sure why we're bothering with XHR1 at all. It is
*not* what the current implementations do anyway.
[Sunava Dutta] I'm sorry, this statement is concerning and I'd like to
understand it better. We haven’t had a chance to run the latest test suite yet
but expect the test suite to be compliant with at least two existing
implementations. Do you mean the XHR 1 draft is not interoperable with existing
implementations?
...
Absolutely. Everytime I check something that is of interest to me it
turns out that there is no interop, and that only some or even none of
the browsers works as specified.
Examples:
- Support for HTTP extension methods: IE violates the SHOULD level
requirement to support extenstion methods. Opera silently (!!!) changes
extension method names to "POST".
- setRequestHeader: none of the browsers throws an exception when
setting the header to null. Some do something useful (removing the
header), some treat it like an empty string, some seem to set the valoue
to the string "null".
I'm also concerned that the spec proposes behaviour that leads to silent
data loss, although it's totally unclear why this is needed for
interoperability (such as when a DOM to be serialized has no XML
representation).
It seems that what's needed here is more work on the test suite. LC is
way too early.
BR, Julian
