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

Re: ISSUE-78: HTML5 stalled and suspend progress events [Progress Events]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:02:30 +0100
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ujwkigwjwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:31:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> We have previously discussed a stalled event, in the context of
>> suggested timing for producing progress events. We decided not to set a
>> specific timing, because the use cases vary a lot and so the appropriate
>> timing of progress events does too. So we could add the event directly
>> to this spec, as a convenience.
>>
>> I think the suspend event would be useful and am inclined to add it.
>> Should there be an unsuspend event, or is it enough to just emit a new
>> progress event signifying taht something started again? And do others
>> think this is a useful addition or just extra work?
>
> I don't think 'unsuspend' is that useful given that you can just detect
> 'progress'.

Yeah, makes sense to me.

> I do think that including all the events specs invent that use
> ProgressEvents into the progress spec makes sense, since that way other
> specs will reuse them.

Well, having them all is probably impossible (since people can write specs  
I can't have read yet) but including ones we know of seems reasonable.

> I still don't think ProgressEvents should really
> have (nor really can have) much in the way of normative text, so I don't
> think that it's really complicated to add events.

These are both "may" in terms of user agents. I would expect to define  
them in such a way that conforming specs use as defined (that is  
effectively already the requirement, although I'll check that it makes  
sense with these added).

I think it also makes sense to add a note that conforming specs and uesr  
agents *should* use the events defined rather than something else with  
equivalent functionality. I'm not sure it makes sense to make that a  
*must*.

Thoughts?

cheers

Chaals

-- 
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, 31 October 2008 19:02:58 GMT

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