On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:30:31 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> What we could do is to say that this is compatible with having >> XMLHttpRequest be an EventTarget. And that this is how they are intended >> to be in a future revision of the spec. This way implementations can >> implement it this way right away. > > This wouldn't really be different from making XHR an EventTarget right > away and recommend that authors just use .onreadystatechange where com- > patibility with legacy implementations is a concern. I agree. What are the issues with XHR being an EventTarget? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 11:00:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT