Following up to an email from Feb 2009:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Following up to a mail from May 2008:
Julian Reschke wrote:
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".
...
Just rechecked...
IE8beta: no improvement -- only the methods in RFC2518 are are
supported, the remaining methods
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-01.html>),
not to mention future methods, are unsupported.
Opera 10: only a small improvement; unknown method names are now changed
to "GET" (still silently!!!).
Best regards, Julian
I just checked Opera 10.5 beta (on Windows): unknown method names
*still* are silently rewritten as GET.
Oh my.
Remind me: what's the purpose of the W3C working on an XHR spec if even
well-documented bugs like this do not get fixed by implementers?
Best regards, Julian
