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

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:53:32 -0700
Message-ID: <48E1A2BC.7010200@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.)

I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that no 
ProgressEvents are dispatch at all? Seems like you at least have to 
prevent 'abort' as well, so why not also 'loadstart' and 'error'.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 03:56:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC