- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:18:05 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:34:03 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > Actually, the last mail I see from anyone on this subject is Jim Lay > arguing for always going to 4, which I tend to agree with as long as we > can find some solution for error handling. From what I recall the last e-mail in that particular thread was me saying you can't rely on what IE does in this case... (Well you can, but authors probably don't as it doesn't make much sense...) Why do we need to find a solution for error handling? I thought that wasn't necessary for "version 1.0". Personally, I'm perfectly happy extending the API with .onabort, .onload, .onerror and perhaps .onprogress as well making it event based instead of "invoke this method" based. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 09:18:22 UTC