W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [XHR2] timeout

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:29:35 +0100
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u26v7lm364w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:23:04 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> Are all of these comments for synchronous XHR only?

Only the TIMEOUT_ERR exception was for the synchronous case. I think the  
synchronous case it would be most consistent to not dispatch any events.  
This is however not what Internet Explorer is currently doing as I  
understand things (have not been able to test yet).


> I agree with most of your comments. Though I think we should fire an
> "abort" event since Progress Events spec says to fire one of
> abort/error/load, and abort seems to fit the bill the best. Or are you
> suggesting that Progress Events should say that one of
> abort/error/load/timeout is always fired?

It seems better to change Progress Events. We already agreed to make  
requirements on specifications less strict.


> I agree that firing readystatechange seems like the most consistent  
> thing to do.
>
> I agree that firing timeout (and IMHO abort) on the XHRUpload object
> unless upload has already finished.
>
> In general, I think essentially behaving as if a "timeout" event was
> fired, and then abort() is called is how we should behave.

abort() has some legacy attached to it that I rather not copy. I rather  
copy how the generic "abort error" network steps behave.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 17:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT