W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:02:18 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB3D3566A8@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, we could live with it but the semantics are more complex. Is this the
> > same as calling abort() then readAsXXX()?
> 
> Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically:
> 
> readAsX(...) {
>   if (requestInProgress)
>     abort();
> 
>   ... start new reading ...
> }
> 
> > When does the abort event get queued? What
> > will be the state of the reader at this point? Will loadend get fired? It
> > needs careful speccing to make sure that the details are handled the same in
> > different implementations.
> 
> Calling the abort() fires the "abort" and "loadend" events before the
> function returns. Likewise readAsX fires the "loadstart" event before
> it returns. So if a load has already started, then readAsX fires,
> before it returns, the following events in order:
> 
> "abort", "loadend", "loadstart"
> 
> But indeed, the spec needs improvements here.

Does loadstart fire synchronously or asynchronously (presuming the first two fire
synchronously?)?
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 16:02:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT