> > > After discussion with Anne and James, I retract my support for a new > constructor. I'm in favor of .responseType. > > Specifically, .responseType would take values like "" (for legacy > treatment) / "text" / "document" / "arraybuffer" / "blob" / etc. If > the value is "", then .responseText and .responseXML are filled > appropriately, while .response is empty. Otherwise, .responseText and > .responseXML are empty (or throw or something), while .response > contains the value in the chosen format. .responseType must be set at > some appropriately early time; after the response is received, changes > to .responseType are ignored or throw. > > ~TJ >
So you prefer that .responseType take a string value as opposed to an integer enum value? Darin Fisher had the idea that introspection of the supported values would be easier as an enum. Chris
