W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: New FileAPI Draft | was Re: FileAPI feedback

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:08:47 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660908052008s19c960a9r9ff3d96d33443de4@mail.gmail.com>
To: arun@mozilla.com
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Arun Ranganathan<arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>> Please show the subsequent use cases you've studied and please do
>> publish your studies.
>>
>>
>
> What I meant by "use cases" was this exchange:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0371.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0457.html
>

Those are the discussions of Events that you did not participate in.
Where is the complexity study?

> In the case of changing UI indicators, using a common codepath for success
> as well as errors seemed more useful than multiple error callbacks.

Multiple error callbacks? Who brought that up? Are you making a Straw Man?

> In the case of file read APIs, simply getting the data asynchronously is
> more convenient than using events.  There is no intrigue at work here,
> merely disagreement.
>

Is it? In reading that discussion, I see no disagreement from you whatsoever.

I see that you posted this new thread. You said you "studied" the use
cases and that your original design was best. We still have no
evidence that any studying has taken place. Please post the studies so
that they can be understood.

The route you chose makes a permanent design decision.  Once done, it
can not be undone. If it goes through as is, the best case at that
point would be to start over.

I am not going to argue with hand-waving summations or the "multiple
error handlers" straw man.


Garrett
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 03:09:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT