On 10.02.2010 16:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:49:18 +0100, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
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?
That it is clear this is in
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
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:49:18 +0100, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
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?
That it is clear this is in fact a bug and needs to be fixed. (I believe
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
, 2009 2:50 AM
To: Sunava Dutta; public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Web API WG (public)
Subject: XHR HTTP method support, Re: XHR LC comments
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
