- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:18:04 +0100
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "web API" <public-webapi@w3.org>
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/>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 13:18:14 UTC