W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > April 2009

Re: several messages

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:01:53 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Fallows <john.fallows@kaazing.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904262023110.10370@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, John Fallows wrote:
>
> As discussed on IRC:
> 
> <john_fallows> Hixie: the latest EventSource API for SSE looks great -
> question: is it now illegal to send "open" and "error" event types in
> an SSE stream because eventSource.addEventListener("open", ...) and
> eventSource.addEventListener("error", ...) would be ambiguous if this
> is permitted?
> <Hixie> john_fallows: it's actually been impossible to set the event
> name for some time now
> <john_fallows> Hixie: okay, missed that removal from the spec, so we
> are locked down as message always?
> <Hixie> john_fallows: yeah, i believe so
> <john_fallows> ok, great - that allieviates any concern, thanks. :)
> <john_fallows> Hixie: am i missing something?
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#processField seems to still
> have the ability to override the event name if the event field is
> present.
> <Hixie> john_fallows: huh, go figure.
> <Hixie> john_fallows: i guess you _can_ send arbitrary events then
> <Hixie> john_fallows: i wonder why we still support that
> <john_fallows> Hixie: IMHO this is probably no longer necessary, and
> as pointed out previously it is also ambiguous for "open" and "error"
> events.
> <Hixie> john_fallows: yeah
> <Hixie> john_fallows: can you send mail to the list saying that i
> should remove it?
> <john_fallows> Hixie: would you like me to send email to remind you to
> remove it?
> <john_fallows> :-)
> <Hixie> yes please :-)

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> I think I requested to keep that in and I still think it is useful. It 
> allows for handling the incoming messages in separate ways without 
> having to parse the data field first. So you can have different handlers 
> for different types of incoming messages. It should be fairly trivial to 
> support, too. "error" and "open" would implement different interfaces so 
> they can be distinguished in that way. I suppose you could make them 
> fail to dispatch if you want to be careful though...

Based on Anne's comments I haven't changed the spec.

The feature seems mostly harmless; even faking 'error' events doesn't seem 
particularily threatening.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 26 April 2009 21:02:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:13:59 GMT