W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Progress event spec

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@streamezzo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:41:06 +0100
Message-ID: <45BE0782.6080803@streamezzo.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
CC: Web API public <public-webapi@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 1. Make the "total" attribute 0 if the length is unknown, and drop the 
> boolean "lengthComputable".
>
> The rationale is that if you really have a zero-length load, it is 
> unlikely to
> ever have time to fire a progress event, and will almost certainly 
> only fire any
> in a really degenerate case. Having a large number was a bad idea, 
> since one day
> you will have a large number of bytes, and having anegative number 
> meant having
> a signed instead of unsigned integer.
I think Maciej has a point. This feels like a hack.
>
> 2. Remove the preload and postload events.
>
> You know when it finished, because the load event or whatever is 
> spitting out
> progress will have finished. You know when it started, because you got a
> progress event.
The above text is meaningless: loadprogress being optional, you need a 
"load-is-beginning" and "load-is-complete" event that are mandatory. So 
what are you doing ? Removing the mandatory first and last event, or 
having them all called the same ?

The use case for indeterminate length and you want to have the end event 
is: you get a live recording. And I would want to know if it is the end 
or just progress. So I really think that removing postload, or at least 
the clear indication of an end, is a mistake.
>
> 3. Add an uploadprogress
>
> It is possible to construct an XHR that is moving content up and down 
> at the
> same time, so knowing when progress refers to one or the other is useful.
>
> 4. Rename loadprogress to progress
>
> It's shorter.
>
> Do any of these changes cause any great heartache or seem crazy? We 
> are trying
> to get this spec out quickly because th JCP guys want it. I haven't 
> updated the
> draft at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/progress/ yet but I wil 
> try to do
> that ASAP so we can request first public working draft.
The rest is fine.

The SVG working group is working on Media Access Events. Did you think 
of reading that spec and checking if there are interactions ? Would it 
be meaningful to merge the two ?
Best regards
JC
-- 

*Jean-Claude Dufourd* - Chief Scientist, *Streamezzo*
21, av. Victor Hugo, 75016 Paris, France, Tel: +33 (0) 153632847
*http://www.streamezzo.com* - Fax: +33 (0) 142224601
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Streamezzo participates to 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona from 12-15 
February 2007. Visit us Hall 7 - Stand 7C28.
If you wish to meet us and discover our Rich Media solutions please 
don’t hesitate to contact us.
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 14:42:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT