W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:04:43 -0400
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uh9up5zi64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:43 -0400, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is  
>>> something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener,  
>>> addEventListenerNS, onprogress, etc. work consistently.
>>  I've done it this way. The 'progress' and 'load' events are only  
>> dispatched if a preflight request has been made.
>
> Why just limit to those events? Seems simpler and more future proof to  
> not fire any events on the upload object. That would also cover future  
> events like 'redirect' and 'stall'.

I don't see any reason to prevent synthesized events from firing. If we  
add more events we have to define when they dispatch anyway so that's not  
a problem. (This is different from whether registered events force a  
preflight or not, where it does make sense to have a catch-all.)


(Will address your other comments later. Currently at a conference in  
Boston.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 02:05:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT