[Greasemonkey] Re: responseXML for GM_xmlhttpRequest

Lenny Domnitser ldrhcp at gmail.com
Thu Jul 7 02:03:53 EDT 2005


>  I seem to remember someone (*poke, Mark*) declaring text/xml
> officially evil. But maybe we should actually use the response type?
> Cuz you know, hard-coding a mime type feels dirty to me.

That is what I thought should be done. I used text/xml because I read
in a comment in some Mozilla code that it is to be parsed as text/xml
[1], but on inspection of code in a separate source file, it is only
parsed as text/xml if no content type is sent [2].

I'm not sure if GM should follow Mozilla's code exactly or instead use
application/xml if no content type is provided. Using text/xml instead
of application/xml might be a bug in Mozilla (somebody check RFC 3023,
as I will not wade through that whole thing now). GM should probably
mirror Mozilla's default content type, and if it ever changes, follow
it.

[1]: http://lxr.mozilla.org/aviary101branch/source/extensions/xmlextras/base/public/nsIXMLHttpRequest.idl#98
[2]: http://lxr.mozilla.org/aviary101branch/source/extensions/xmlextras/base/src/nsXMLHttpRequest.cpp#1071
[RFC 3023]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list