RE: No arguments to XMLHttpRequest.send (ACTION-58)

I agree with this position. The most important goal for now is to document what works and what authors can rely on. Everything else needs to be labelled "here be dragons" until version 2 of the spec.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-webapi-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 10:26 PM
To: Web APIs WG
Subject: No arguments to XMLHttpRequest.send (ACTION-58)
 

Hi all,

In my ACTION-58 I was supposed to think about what I wanted us to do 
regarding calling XMLHttpRequest.send with no arguments.

I actually think that we should make the spec require an argument for 
now. The whole purpose of this spec is to define what works across all 
browsers so that users know what they can do.

I definitely agree that what mozilla is doing is wrong and unfortunate, 
and we'll fix it in Firefox 2, but that is beside the point. The problem 
is that if people start using no-argument sends their code is not going 
to work in firefox 1-1.5.

Things like minor inconsistencies in what onreadystatechange 
notifications are sent and how to resolve relative uris when several 
windows are involved are things that I'm fine with since it won't affect 
a lot of people. But send without argument would probably be used by a 
lot of people so that is a lot worse.

So I think we should for now require an argument. We can always make the 
argument optional in version 2.

/ Jonas
 
Talking with Talis 
Listen to conversations with thought-leaders at the interface between Web 2.0, Libraries, and the Semantic Web, visit www.talis.com/podcasts and enjoy new Talis podcasts now. 


Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.

Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 12:27:44 UTC