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

[progress events] editorial fixes and module

From: Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:33:04 +0000
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <E1MayyJ-0006DK-KH@bart.w3.org>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:24:03 +1100, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:33:35 +1100, Kartikaya Gupta <lists.webapps@stakface.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:30:42 +1100, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please review and send brickbats, comments, etc. ...
> >
> > 3. The description for the "totalArg" parameter of initProgressEvent  
> says "... the value of this parameter is not a non-negative number ...".  
> Why not just say "... the value of this parameter is a negative number  
> ..."? (redundant double negative removal).
> 
> All agreed and fixed. I'll put out another version in a few days that  
> includes all these changes.
> 

The "loadedArg" parameter has the same "not a non-negative number" double-negative that should probably be fixed.

Also, the two operations defined in the IDL are missing the semi-colon after the argument list as required by WebIDL.

I would also like to know which module the ProgressEvent interface will end up in, so I can generate Java bindings appropriately. For now I'm assuming it will go into org.w3c.dom.events since that seems to be the appropriate place IMO.

And finally, is there a timeline for pushing this spec forward? It hasn't been touched for the last 5 months, and I would like to see this spec move somewhere rather than die a death of apathy like so many specs have... even a publication from editor's draft to a new WD would be better than nothing :)

Cheers,
kats
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 21:33:40 GMT

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