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 21:52:24 -0700
Message-ID: <48E1B088.2020209@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0400, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that 
>> no ProgressEvents are dispatch at all?
> 
> That would prevent synthesized ProgressEvent events.

I mean that the implementation should not dispatch any ProgressEvents. I 
don't see a reason that synthesized 'load' or 'progress' events should 
be prevented, and it doesn't look like those are prevented now.

>> Seems like you at least have to prevent 'abort' as well,
> 
> Why is that?

Otherwise you tell the 'abort' apart from 'error' to do server detection.

>> so why not also 'loadstart' and 'error'.
> 
> We could do that I suppose. It would require doing an origin check 
> before returning on send() in the asynchronous case, but that shouldn't 
> be much of an issue.

Yes, I don't see a reason to do the origin checks after
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 04:55:04 GMT

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