On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:56:45 +0200, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what IMHO happens all over again is that strange choices in the design are defended with the statement "this is what the vendors do, or want to do", and when we check it, that turns out to be incorrect.
Could you point out one such example? I've actually tested a fair amount of stuff, including headers, methods, etc. I agree that some of the details of headers need to be worked out. For null/""/undefined I've been waiting for the Web IDL specification. For which headers can be set by the user agent I don't really have an answer and that part has not been defined as such. That setRequestHeader() always appends was a conscious choice to be in line with Internet Explorer. Initially the design was so that it special cased a bunch of headers that did not allow duplication which would have been more in line with Firefox, but given that it is not a fixed list and the Internet Explorer route seemed more appropriate.
-- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
