Re: HTTP client module

Hi Florent,

In general I really like this proposal. I've got a few comments or 
questions below:

1) What about adding an alternative function signature with only the 
$request parameter?

2) Shouldn't the $serial accept the name of a set of serialization 
parameters defined by xsl:output, as well as possibly an inline 
xsl:output element?

3) What is the use case for send-authorization? Why not just send 
authorization in the first request?

4) I think that the default serialization method needs to be a bit more 
flexible - consider application/rdf+xml for instance.

5) What is the use case for status-only? Can't lazy evaluation achieve 
the same thing? Could you use a HEAD request instead?

6) "If the body media type is a textual type" - what does that mean? 
What about text/xml?

7) Should HTML parsing (tidying) be optional? What about parsing other 
media types - could that also be implementation defined?

8) What is the use case for "override-content-type"?

9) What about the ability to send base64Binary, or hexBinary? I guess 
that would involve a binary serialization method.

John

Florent Georges wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
>   I've just uploaded a proposal for an HTTP client extension
> function (to send HTTP requests and receive responses.)  You can
> find it at http://www.fgeorges.org/xslt/exslt2/http-client.html.
> 
>   There are still a few pending points (identified in the
> document by the string "TODO:",) but the main idea is there.
> 
>   I would be interested by any comment, either on the extension
> itself or on EXSLT 2.0 in general (should we use such documents
> for proposals, or should we use the wiki, namespace naming rules,
> etc.)
> 
>   Regards,
> 


-- 
John Snelson, Oracle Corporation            http://snelson.org.uk/john
Berkeley DB XML:            http://oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/xml
XQilla:                                  http://xqilla.sourceforge.net