Talk:XMLHttpRequest

message: Can anyone provide a source for this statement: 
If the Content-Type request header was not added through setRequestHeader yet, it should automatically be added by a conforming user agent as "application/xml;charset=charset," where charset is the encoding used to encode the document.
It appears that it is not possible to set the charset of the Request Header. It is always set to UTF-8, regardless of the document encoding.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepherim (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  setRequestHeader 

message: The article correctly states IE had XHR in versions prior to 7. However, I notice someone has been removing the fact that versions before 7.0 cannot instantiate the now-standard XMLHttpRequest class without workarounds, because the original Microsoft XMLHTTP was not a class of its own, but an ActiveXObject. None of the examples on the page work in IE 5.x-6.x without code somewhat like this, and the info on the page is misleading without it, so please discuss here before removing it again: 74.192.58.22 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this listing adds encyclopedic value, and removed it. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and should keep the discussion of backwards compatibility to a high level, appropriate for the context. Any readers interested in actual implementation details can find them in the cited sources and external links. --Piet Delport (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep short IE 5-6 compatibility code 

message: methods and properties have no reason to be in a wikipedia article. 
Resume it  to help people discover what it can do ll be more intructive. 
as a developper find this chapter usefull but not for non programmer.
perhaps specific code could be keep ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.131.191.80 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we seem to have a 'dumbing-down' brigade who hate code examples in articles - it's happened on XML, SVG, CSS etc etc. Apparently we need more history and media comment. Yet they don't seem to mind almost impenetrable mathematical articles like Negligible function. Media studies is the future (but hopefully, some of us will still remember how the software works) :o) --Nigelj (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move API ( property function method in other article ? 

message: First time I am reading the article and I notice that the "HTTP request" section has been tagged as having no reference. Looking through the history, the revision this has been done is "10:38, 1 October 2010 Mabdul". Although I can understand that two citations aren't much for that amount of text, a better thing to do would have been to look for references where you thought they would have been useful. I've been observing a tendency to flag things instead of contributing. If people have enough knowledge to flag, I'm expecting that they also have enough knowledge to correct things too. Otherwise, what I've learnt today on this article wouldn't have been available to me. There should be a middle ground between flagging and leaving, and contributing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amenel (talk • contribs)  
:I can understand you're opinion and your concerns about only-tagging articles. For my defense I have to say that I'm working on really many articles simultaneous and my watchlist has since a few weeks over 600 pages! (ok, some may redirects I created) In many articles I'm constantly adding more references or expanding these articles. I have not the time to expand this article also. mabdul 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencitis 

message: This section contains flawed example code. It would be better to correct the code.
Specifically:
1) the code example shows the send method called before the callback event is defined; and
2) the text following the code discusses the effect of calling the send method before the open method (reversing the first two lines)
It would surely be better to include good code and, if there are inconsistencies between browsers when such code executes, discuss those inconsistencies, rather than the problems that might be caused by poorly written code.
Showing bad coding examples and then discussing what's wrong with them may be appropriate for an article about good and bad coding practices, but it's not appropriate here.
--DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The onreadystatechange event listener 

message: The article portrays XMLHttpRequest as supporting http and https and XML and plain text. That's the way XMLHttpRequest was originally, but since then, it has evolved to a more generic scriptable URL fetch mechanism.
These days, at least the development versions of all major browsers support URL schemes beyond http: and https:. In particular, blob: URLs are supported, see http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ for spec.
Response types beyond XML and plain text are supported. These days, HTML, byte buffer and JSON responses are supported, too. See:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML_in_XMLHttpRequest
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707142
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/file/xhr2/
I'm not making edits to the article myself, since my edits would probably get reverted as violating some Wikipedia policy against primary sources as I have implemented some of these features for Firefox/Gecko. Hsivonen (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither limited to XML nor HTTP

message: Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
=== Collaboration...===
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
 
=== Where to list JavaScript articles ===
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
Aren't this kind of stuff should be made by special page Category:JavaScript page?82.142.169.244 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles 

message: We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
Aren't this kind of stuff should be made by special page Category:JavaScript page?82.142.169.244 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to list JavaScript articles 

message: At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article.  Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating JavaScript articles 

message: if (window.XMLHttpRequest) ? Really? This is 2020, all major browsers support this feature without polyfills, and very few APIs bother checking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.63 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature detection outdated 

message: "Particularly, retrieval of data from XHR for the purpose of continually modifying a loaded web page is the underlying concept of Ajax design."
: The meaning and significance of that statement in the context is entirely non-obvious. Some overhaul (rewriting) can help. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajax? 

message: This really isn't open to dispute. First line of the latest standard: "The XMLHttpRequest object is an API". The object implements an interface. One programs applications using that object that implements that interface. The standard specifies the required behavior of the interface, which in browser JavaScript runtimes is bound to objects created by calls to a constructor. There is no requirement that the objects are instances of a class in JavaScript or any other language. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Regarding : Please refrain from personal attacks. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text: * Regarding : If you want to drill down on anything specific, then address it in a talk section. Be prepared to support your assertions with reliable sources. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not refrain from criticizing the inclusion of wanton misinformation in the article. From HTTP 1.1: "The GET method means retrieve whatever information … is identified by the Request-URI." "POST is designed to allow … annotation of existing resources; posting a message …; providing a block of data … to a data-handling process; extending a database through an append operation." For a deeper discussion see Roy Fielding's dissertation on REST. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Would you like to explain what you suppose this code would do: request.open( "DELETE", null ); 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Regarding what the HTTP 1.1: says: The HTTP 1.1 is confusing. What Michael Mahemoff wrote in "Ajax Design Patterns" (published by O'Reilly) simplified the distinction. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  * Regarding : Please provide some context. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  * Regarding : Please keep the discussion cordial. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  * Regarding : If material in this dissertation is germane to the discussion, then quote from it to support an assertion. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: HTTP 1.1 is a technical standard, and it is definitive. If it's "confusing", the burden is on the reader to demonstrate that. The "context" is that you added that code to the article a year ago. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Ruby on Rails was a significant influence in the adoption of REST-based server APIs. From Ruby on Rails for Microsoft Developers by Antonio Cangiano (credentials): "The Golden Rule of web development is that any request that retrieves information should be a GET request, and any request that affects the data stored on the server should use the POST HTTP method." (nb: Rails was introduced when support for PUT and DELETE was inconsistent, and it allows them to be tunneled through POST requests.) "This rule is constantly violated, and it's not uncommon to see publicly accessible links that issue GET requests and have the ability to delete or modify data…. You should avoid this at all costs." Indeed it is often violated, which is why I used to ask people about the difference in job interviews, and why I don't have much tolerance for text here that propagates such error. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What sentence in the article are you refuting? What should the sentence be instead? What source are you basing this change on? Timhowardriley (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The same sentence that I quoted above! I don't see a reason that the article should say anything about choosing between GET and POST because XHR sends either just as well and this isn't an article on how to implement a RESTful service. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  XHR is an API