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

Re: New Progress draft (1.25)...

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:59:35 +0200
To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ujizhlg1wxe0ny@widsith.orange-hotspot.com>

Sorry for the slow reply. I have been busy (that's also why I still  
haven't edited the minutes to try and make more sense).

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:57:55 +0200, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>  

> 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>

>>>> It was agreed that loadend should fire prior to abort | error | load.
>> I do remember that we talked about it that way

Yeah, me too. FWIW having it in the other way is merely an artifact of me  
doing it in a hurry and remembering wrong. I don't have any particualr  
attachment either way - and thanks for picking up the inconsistency.

>> 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'être, as I see it, and that is the exact
> reason I proposed this to "Chaals" over a year ago (it is in the
> archives).

(My name is formally "Charles" as in my email signature. However, I am  
very widely known as "chaals" and use it as an equivalent. Feel free to  
use either, but I prefer to be addressed by something you consider a name,  
rather than something you feel needs to be in inverted commas).

> 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."

As noted, this is not "my way" in any real sense. I just didn't check  
carefully enough over the dicussion when I was editing. Unless the WG  
thinks we should actually change to the way that slipped into the current  
draft, I will make a new draft that changes back to Garrett's proposal.  
This won't happen for a week anyway, so feel free to discuss until then.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 10:59:59 UTC

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