W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:57:55 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660810231957n123266e9p483c7956a510f830@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
>>> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.24
>>>> Hopefully this draft is ready for last call. So please have a look
>>>> through
>>> It was agreed that loadend should fire prior to abort | error | load.
> I do remember that we talked about it that way, and also talked about having
> the default action of the loadend event be to fire the appropriate
> abort/error/load event.
> However I'm not sure why that way is better? I.e. why would you want to
> prevent abort/error/load from firing?

I can't imagine why anyone would would do that. Seems like a red herring.

The goal is to know when a request has completed, to remove the
"loading state indicator" (e.g. progress bar, busy icon, overlay).
That is loadend's raison d'Ítre, as I see it, and that is the exact
reason I proposed this to "Chaals" over a year ago (it is in the

If loadend fires after "load | abort | error", the "loading state
indicator" would be removed after that. I think that is less
desirable. We could have it one of two ways:

Garrett's way:
"I'm done" then "here's your data."

Chaals' way:
"here's your data" then "I'm done."


> / Jonas
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 02:58:31 UTC

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