Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement document response correctly for XHR #9707

Open
KiChjang opened this issue Feb 20, 2016 · 8 comments
Open

Implement document response correctly for XHR #9707

KiChjang opened this issue Feb 20, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member

@KiChjang KiChjang commented Feb 20, 2016

Code: components/script/dom/xmlhttprequest.rs
Spec: https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#document-response
Test: tests/wpt/web-platform-tests/XMLHttpRequest/responsexml-*.htm

cc @liviuba

@liviuba
Copy link
Contributor

@liviuba liviuba commented Feb 20, 2016

I'd really like to take this one

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

@Ms2ger Ms2ger commented Feb 20, 2016

It's not clear to me there's anything to be done here that we can do right now.

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member Author

@KiChjang KiChjang commented Feb 20, 2016

@Ms2ger, @liviuba in their pull request for extracting document_response into its own function said that they would like to work on making step 6 match the spec.

@KiChjang KiChjang added the C-assigned label Feb 20, 2016
@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

@Ms2ger Ms2ger commented Feb 20, 2016

Do we have infra for prescanning?

@KiChjang
Copy link
Member Author

@KiChjang KiChjang commented Feb 20, 2016

Can we use parsell or tendrill for this?

@jdm
Copy link
Member

@jdm jdm commented Mar 23, 2016

@liviuba Have you made any progress here?

@liviuba
Copy link
Contributor

@liviuba liviuba commented Mar 23, 2016

@jdm Got stuck with Parsell because of the lack of documentation / usage in general / experience with parsers on my side. Right now I'm trying to at least partially implement prescanning with Nom and once I get that going moving to Parsell should be doable

@jdm jdm removed the E-easy label Apr 8, 2016
@jdm
Copy link
Member

@jdm jdm commented Apr 8, 2016

It's not clear to me that this is a good E-easy issue due to the open questions around how to implement prescanning, so I'm removing the label.

@KiChjang KiChjang removed the C-assigned label Sep 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.