Re: upload progress events

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:02:42 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2007, at 02:49, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> This would require a change in XHR to adopt the Progress Events spec,  
>> but would considerably simplify Progress Events. Thoughts?
>
> This is a typical issue with specs that correlate. I'd say that since  
> both specs are controlled by the same WG, and since adding that field to  
> XHR in the the XHR spec doesn't make any sense unless Progress Events  
> are supported, it's fine to extend the XHR interface from within the  
> Progress Events spec. I'll admit I don't have a strong opinion either  
> way though, I just thought I'd bring it up as an option.

I think it would be way better to define how they interact in XHR2,  
actually.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>