On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:47:03 +0200, Zhenbin Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So if we can change .responseText to also throw an exception then I'd
be fine with having .responseXML also throw.
[Zhenbin Xu] Sounds good. Thanks!
FWIW, I exlained why these members do not throw currently in this e-mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0188.html
Which contained a pointer to this thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/thread.html#msg94
Where it is explained that throwing for responseText and responseXML is
not implemented in a consistent way in Internet Explorer and breaks some
library.
All the subsequent e-mails (in reply to my explanation) were about parse
errors and did not address the issues with throwing for responseText and
responseXML as far as I can tell (instead of returning the empty string
and null).
(Also, would it be possible to use slightly less verbose and more to the
point subject lines? It would help a lot with skimming through e-mail, of
which I get quite bit :/)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
