On Wed, 09 May 2007 07:18:32 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The reason is that the draft needs to be reasonably compatible with
existing content such that it can be implemented without breaking
content.
If you think my suggestion would break existing content, it would be
more useful if you could actually explain your reasoning to me. It is
clear to me that Content-Type:text/xsl indicates the message body is
an XML document, I do not understand why adopting the text I proposed
would break any content.
If one UA treats Content-Type:text/foobar as XML and another UA does not
and a site starts relying on text/foobar being treated as XML we have a
problem.
The user agent conformance class clearly says as long as the algorithm
used produces the same result it doesn't matter how they do it.
If an implementation does the method syntax check before the same
origin check, you would get a SYNTAX_ERR exception; if you change
the order, you get a SECURITY_ERR exception. Clearly those are not
the same result. The question is why the draft now mandates a par-
ticular execution order. It is not clear to me it should.
That is indeed the result. Does anyone else finds this problematic?
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
