On May 17, 2008, at 1:03 AM, 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
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
If */* is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and
the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the former.
...
I would prefer not to silently change what the client requested.
If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!),
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
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
On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:23:24 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
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
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
Data loss is not a safe choice, it's a bad choice.
Do you have any evidence of deployed code that would break if this would
throw?
...
I just tried with FF3 and IE7.
Using a non-ns-wellformed document:
- FF3: happily sends it
- IE7: couldn't figure out how to
Julian Reschke wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Using a non-ns-wellformed document:
- FF3: happily sends it
Out of curiosity, what did this document look like? What got sent?
I removed the document element and added a comment node, so it looked like:
!-- foo --
