2007/6/29, Geoffrey Garen:
The XMLHttpRequest spec has this to say about failed loads:
snip
The NETWORK_ERR exception is thrown when a network error occurs in
synchronous requests.
...
In case of network errors
In case of DNS errors or other type of networks run the following set
of steps.This
Safari 3 for Windows raises this exception:
For the record, I've just now changed Safari (WebKit) to stop throwing
that exception, which matches Safari 2.
Geoff
All browsers terminate the doctype at the first character, even if
it's inside the public identifier or system identifier. I think the spec
should reflect this by adding:
U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN ()
Parse error. Set the DOCTYPE token's correctness flag to incorrect.
Emit that
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:59, Simon Pieters wrote:
U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN ()
Parse error. Set the DOCTYPE token's correctness flag to
incorrect.
Emit that DOCTYPE token. Switch to the data state.
Should the string (public id or system id) that was being built be
dropped on
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:20:38 +0200, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:59, Simon Pieters wrote:
U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN ()
Parse error. Set the DOCTYPE token's correctness flag to
incorrect.
Emit that DOCTYPE token. Switch to the data state.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:26:44 +0200, Stewart Brodie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All browsers terminate the doctype at the first character, even if
it's inside the public identifier or system identifier.
I see this sort of comment a lot - I think it
Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All browsers terminate the doctype at the first character, even if
it's inside the public identifier or system identifier.
I see this sort of comment a lot - I think it would be really helpful if
people could state which browsers they have actually
IE7 does not allow XML-HTTP-Requesting a local file whether it exists or
not. You can use Scripting.FileSystemObject for that purpose.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Garen
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 6:39 AM
To: [EMAIL
Oops, sorry, answered to public-html instead of whatwg, resend...
2007/6/29, Kristof Zelechovski:
IE7 does not allow XML-HTTP-Requesting a local file whether it exists or
not.
Yes, and note that other browsers I've tested (Firefox, Opera 9 and
Safari for Windows) return 0 as xhr.status and an
For HTML elements in HTML documents, why is Element.localName uppercased
for tag names and lowercased for attribute names? I wouldn't expect it to,
and it makes it harder to write scripts that work for both HTML and XHTML.
For example, if you want a script to work in both legacy HTML UAs and
On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
For HTML elements in HTML documents, why is Element.localName
uppercased for tag names and lowercased for attribute names? I
wouldn't expect it to, and it makes it harder to write scripts that
work for both HTML and XHTML. For example, if
2007/6/29, Simon Pieters:
For HTML elements in HTML documents, why is Element.localName uppercased
for tag names and lowercased for attribute names?
Because of this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-5353782642
and this:
http://www.w3.org/2000/11/DOM-Level-2-errata#html-2
I
Sorry it took me awhile to respond. Work intruded.
On 6/26/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now I think we're missing just one thing from your list of goals
(excluding the vexatious multiple resources for one URI goal): a way to
get consistent updates without relying on JAR
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:22:49 +0200, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2007/6/29, Simon Pieters:
For HTML elements in HTML documents, why is Element.localName uppercased
for tag names and lowercased for attribute names?
Because of this:
If the spec dealt with the html start tag token directly in the
root element phase, the parse error in the main phase wouldn't need
to be conditional. (Implementations that experience a perf benefit
from not mutating the attributes of a node probably want to hoist the
html node creation to
On Jun 26, 2007 4:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/27/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great! So where do we differ on the implementation of those goals? Is
there an up-to-date spec I can read?
http://www.campd.org/stuff/Offline%20Cache.html
Right now I
On Jun 26, 2007 4:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/27/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, that means apps can't serve different resources at the same
URL, even when a connection is available, which seems like a big
constraint.
Sure they can. The user
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
2007/6/29, Simon Pieters:
For HTML elements in HTML documents, why is Element.localName
uppercased
for tag names and lowercased for attribute names?
Because of this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-5353782642
and this:
On 6/30/07, Andy Palay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I don't know why one would want to maintain atomicity at the domain
level as opposed to the application level. When I run an application I want
to make sure I get the latest version of the application. Not sure why it
would mean that I want to
On 6/30/07, Andy Palay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 4:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure they can. The user can only have one active login per browser
session
anyway, so the app just swaps in a whole new set of resources when the
user
logs in with a different
On 6/29/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but let's suppose a Web app does
want to support multiple users sharing a single offline browser profile and
those users need different languages. (I think this is already a rather
narrow scenario,
On 6/30/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/26/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now I think we're missing just one thing from your list of goals
(excluding the vexatious multiple resources for one URI goal): a way
to
get consistent updates without relying on
On 6/30/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think as you tried more and more languages, you'd get more resources
associated with the domain. And so the number of resources that would
need to get revalidated on each view of the app would get larger.
I don't think so --- just serve a
On 6/29/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/30/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think as you tried more and more languages, you'd get more resources
associated with the domain. And so the number of resources that would
need to get revalidated on each view of the
But it does place a very large burdon on the servers. Google would expect to
have quite a few applications and my guess is the last thing we would want
is to keep pinging every application to see if it up to date whenever any
application is used.
In fact while we want to make sure the user has
On 6/30/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/29/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/30/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think as you tried more and more languages, you'd get more resources
associated with the domain. And so the number of resources
On 6/30/07, Andy Palay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it does place a very large burdon on the servers. Google would expect
to have quite a few applications and my guess is the last thing we would
want is to keep pinging every application to see if it up to date whenever
any application is used.
On 6/30/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is, then I would suggest simply allowing consistency to be
partitioned by directory as well. I'm not sure of the best way for the
server to configure that, though.
One option would be to use an HTTP header to allow each resource to
28 matches
Mail list logo
