Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:20:38 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> [...] I think >>> solving Anne's pain is easier and more useful. >> >> I guess i'm trying to solve both, but the latter is more important. >> But I would say "content and implementations" rather then just >> implementations. >> >> I'm arguing that making onreadystatechange an EventListener will not >> solve the pain of different implementations (and content) doing >> different things. First of all IE does not support this and it is >> highly unlikly that it would in any resonable amount of time. >> Especially given that it doesn't support W3C DOM Events. > > Sure, but does that mean new implementions should not do it that way > either? 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. / JonasReceived on Monday, 20 March 2006 00:56:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT