Typos and comments

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Typos and comments

Stewart Brodie


These comments refer to the Feburary 27th Last Call version of the document.


Section 1.2: typo: conforming script: "A script MUST satisfy the
**constrains** ..."


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.

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



Acknowledgements: typo: "also to the WHATWG for **drafing** a first version"


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**".



--
Stewart Brodie
Software Engineer
ANT Software Limited

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Typos and comments

Anne van Kesteren-2

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:03:33 +0100, Stewart Brodie  
<[hidden email]> 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/>