The default bug view has changed. See this FAQ.

Status

()

Core
DOM
--
enhancement
11 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: Gopal Venkatesan, Unassigned)

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

(Reporter)

Description

11 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20060601 Firefox/2.0 (Ubuntu-edgy)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20060601 Firefox/2.0 (Ubuntu-edgy)

The specification is available from:

  http://www.json.org/JSONRequest.html

Would it be possible for this to make it sometime for JS2?


Reproducible: Always

Updated

11 years ago
Assignee: nobody → general
Component: General → JavaScript Engine
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → general
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Assignee: general → general
Component: JavaScript Engine → DOM
QA Contact: general → ian
Wrong component.  JavaScript Engine is the core language, not various APIs that are properly (or not) part of the DOM or browser object model.

Is this a dup?

/be
Whiteboard: DUPEME

Updated

11 years ago
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true

Updated

11 years ago
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
dupe of 340987

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 340987 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
No, it isn't. JSONRequest and parseJSON/toJSONString aren't the same thing.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Whiteboard: DUPEME

Comment 4

11 years ago
why can we have just one "Request" and use it for getting XML, JSON, image, or text, instead of separate JSONRequest, XMLHttpRequest, new Image() etc. depending on security.

Comment 5

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #4)
> why can we have just one "Request" 

"CrossSiteRequest" seems more to the point of addressing security. 

> and use it for getting XML, JSON, image, or
> text, instead of separate JSONRequest, XMLHttpRequest, new Image() etc.
> depending on security.
> 

That was my initial reaction, 30 seconds into reading the JSONRequest spec. Why is JSON is the only valid transfer encoding/type. 

The name 'JSONRequest' seems only more suitable to the interface described in the JSONRequest whitepaper than 'XMLHttpRequest' is to the XMLHttpRequest interface due to JSONRequest's encoding limitations (JSON), which do not appear to be justified. 

The JSONRequest specification appears to be biased towards JSON.

This was argued well by Jim Ley on WHAT WG:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-March/006083.html

Should Security and Encoding be decoupled? 

Comment 6

10 years ago
Some security is obtained because the encoding is limited to a single format. 

Comment 7

10 years ago
A JSONRequest Firefox extension by Collin Jackson can be found at http://crypto.stanford.edu/jsonrequest/

Comment 8

10 years ago
Doug, your input on the the W3C CrossSiteRequest could be helpful:

http://www.w3.org/TR/access-control/

The addon mentioned in comment 7 is at AMO now:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5615

/be

Comment 10

9 years ago
What are the chances of this going in for 3.1?

Could the addon be included as is or does it require further work (if so, what?)? Or will we need a different implementation?

CrossSiteRequest is much more complex and still in working draft status. JSONRequest fits more cleanly and simply with the way we are building AJAX sites, so it would really be nice to have it available as early as possible.

Comment 11

9 years ago
The addon is currently implemented in JavaScript. I think we'd probably want a C++ implementation if native support is desired.

Comment 12

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #10)
> CrossSiteRequest is much more complex and still in working draft status.
> JSONRequest fits more cleanly and simply with the way we are building AJAX
> sites, so it would really be nice to have it available as early as possible.

An implementation of Cross-Site XMLHttpRequest is already complete and is queued to go in Gecko 1.9.1. See bug 389508 and bug 408098.

Assignee: general → nobody
QA Contact: ian → general
Wontfix?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.