; public-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Further LC Followup from IE RE: Potential bugs
identified in XHR LC Test Suite
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Zhenbin Xu wrote:
I am not sure if I understand your question.
responseXML.parseError
has the error information
http://msdn.microsoft.com
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Zhenbin Xu wrote:
In the case there isn't clear technical differences, I don't think we
should pick the right solution based on implementer's cost. Rather We
should base it on customer impact. A bank with 6000 applications built
on top of IE's current APIs simply
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:46 PM
To: Zhenbin Xu
Cc: Sunava Dutta; Web API public; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team; public-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Further LC Followup from IE RE: Potential bugs
identified
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Further LC Followup from IE RE: Potential bugs
identified in XHR LC Test Suite
Zhenbin Xu wrote:
The issue of return null or an exception is simply a compromise
here. IE would throw an exception for state violations. Accessing
responseXML before open
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Zhenbin Xu wrote:
I am not sure if I understand your question. responseXML.parseError
has the error information
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa926483.aspx
Oh, I assumed Sunava meant a conforming Document object was returned.
A parseError-type
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Zhenbin Xu wrote:
I am not sure if I understand your question. responseXML.parseError
has the error information
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa926483.aspx
Oh, I assumed Sunava meant a conforming Document object was returned.
A
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, Zhenbin Xu wrote:
Ian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote:
When Parsing Error happens, IE would still retain responseXML and
put error information on the object. Isnt this better than null as
there�s more relevant information for the web developer?
Inline...
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:34 PM
To: Sunava Dutta
Cc: Web API public; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Further LC Followup from IE RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR
LC Test Suite
To: Sunava Dutta
Cc: Web API public; IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Further LC Followup from IE RE: Potential bugs identified in XHR
LC Test Suite
_http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/001.htm_
The test is expecting us to return NULL in case open
Zhenbin Xu wrote:
The issue of return null or an exception is simply a compromise
here. IE would throw an exception for state violations. Accessing
responseXML before open() is a state violation so it would trigger
exception. Other browsers may return null in such situation. In order
to
_http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/001.htm_
The test is expecting us to return NULL in case open() has not been
called. We throw an exception in IE. I’d pre fer if the spec says
*“*MUST return null OR an exception*”* otherwise I fear sites today will
be broken.
2nd email to the new alias from me!
Dev, test and I ran a few more tests and had some results to share. A few of
these should probably be clarified in the LC draft or the test cases should
change.
Details below...
http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/009.htm
When Parsing
Some quick comments on some of the comments regarding the tests:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote:
http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/responseXML/009.htm
When Parsing Error happens, IE would still retain responseXML and put
error information on the object. Isnt this
To add to the list:
http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/open/028.php
http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/statusText/001.htm
- expects exceptions to be thrown when the spec has been updated to return
null/
http://tc.labs.opera.com/apis/XMLHttpRequest/setRequestHeader/023.php
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:47:31 +0200, Sunava Dutta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meanwhile, I'd like to re-iterate a point I had raised up awhile back.
Are the tests going to be 'complete' /comprehensive at CR in relation to
the spec? MSFT obviously wants this test suite to be official ensuring
15 matches
Mail list logo
