On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:03:33 +0100, Stewart Brodie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Section 1.2: typo: conforming script: "A script MUST satisfy the
**constrains** ..."
Fixed.
Section 2.1: typo: "In addition, when the state is not uninitialized, all
members of the object with the exception of **onreadystate** MUST be set
to
..." This should be onreadystatechange, presumably.
Fixed.
Section 2.1 send(): typo: "Note: This means that in case of a HEAD
request
the state is set to loaded immediately after having **being** set to
receiving." Should be 'been', presumably missed after 'having' was
added.
Fixed.
Section 2.1 send(): same note on HEAD: clarification: I would like to
see
an additional sentence prepending that one in the note that rams home the
point that you cannot skip states just because progress has been made
quicker than expected. Something like: "The object MUST pass through
each
of those states and not omit any states due to reaching the next state
quickly." Then the sentence about HEAD that follows is an example. This
clarification would be useful for non-HTTP transports where results are
available instantly, for instance when file URIs are accessed.
I think the requirements regarding states are already clear enough. For
instance, if you'd invoke open() during the process you would not go to 4,
et cetera.
Section 2.1 right at the end: "HTTP requests from multiple different
XMLHttpRequest objects in succession SHOULD use a shared HTTP
connection".
I think this statement fits better in the description of send() - it
seems
rather lost in its current position, particularly since the main method
that
it affects is send().
I also think that it should be a non-normative note and SHOULD should be
MAY, because this is a high-level specification that should not be
interfering with the user agent's low-level transport.
I dropped this sentence for now.
Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: I really do not like the lack
of
"Connection" in this list at all. I don't see what value it affords the
application that the user agent's HTTP engine cannot already derive.
If other people support this change I'm willing to make the edit.
Section 2.1: the list of ignored headers: why is this not a MUST
requirement? My HTTP implementation code will most certainly not permit
some of those headers to be set, specifically
It's a security thing. Implementations may do something else in special
circumstances.
Acknowledgements: typo: "also to the WHATWG for **drafing** a first
version"
Fixed.
An administrative section typo that I assume is irrelevant because those
sections will change in the final document anyway:
Status of this document: "This is the 27 February 2007 Last Call Working
Draft of The XMLHttpRequest Object **specifcation**".
Fixed.
Thanks a lot for your comments!
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
