Talk:Parsing and serializing XML: Difference between revisions
From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
it either should serialize xmlHttpRequest.responseXML or just write responseText to the stream. If one just wants to write the result of GET request to a file, it makes no sense to serialize parsed responseXML. | it either should serialize xmlHttpRequest.responseXML or just write responseText to the stream. If one just wants to write the result of GET request to a file, it makes no sense to serialize parsed responseXML. | ||
[[User:Asqueella|asqueella]] | [[User:Asqueella|asqueella]] | ||
::I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying. I think you're saying one can simply write req.responseText to a file; there's no need to use XMLSerializer. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. [[User:Grimholtz|grimholtz]] | |||
Revision as of 06:35, 18 March 2005
"Serializing DOM trees to files" section doesn't make any sense at all when it's talking about xmlhttprequest. If you wanted to write about saving remote files' contents, it would better be on xmlhttprequest's page.
What's the idea behind "Serializing XMLHttpRequest objects to files" paragraph? I ask because this example is incorrect:
serializer.serializeToStream(xmlHttpRequest.responseText, foStream, "IS0-8859-1");
it either should serialize xmlHttpRequest.responseXML or just write responseText to the stream. If one just wants to write the result of GET request to a file, it makes no sense to serialize parsed responseXML. asqueella
- I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying. I think you're saying one can simply write req.responseText to a file; there's no need to use XMLSerializer. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. grimholtz
