W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: File API Feedback

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:29:04 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906301629p41451749t5ddfcc7702dfc672@mail.gmail.com>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Cc: arun@mozilla.com, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With that in mind, do you still think it makes sense to have progress
>> events and all the other events you are proposing?
>
> I've reread my message. The arguments and reasoning given for Events
> seem clear and concise. The argument for Progress Events was
> illustrated with an example and a comparison. What was confusing?

What is the use case for the API you are proposing? I agree that what
you are proposing allows for a lot of flexibility, but it also results
in an API that is more complex. Thus I think we should stick with the
current API unless you have use cases in mind that only works in the
API you are proposing.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 23:30:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT