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

Re: Synchronous XMLHttpRequest and events

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:02:50 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTin6949vA2ZwoNjDpcXLG-AeyhbH9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olli@pettay.fi
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:

> On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/11 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It *does* however call for a readystatechange event to be fired in
>>>> response to the call to .open. Even if the request being started is a
>>>> synchronous one.
>>>>
>>>> What is the use case for this event? It seems pretty useless and
>>>> inconsistent to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe web pages depend on this to some extent; the fact that Gecko
>>> used
>>> to not fire it caused all sorts of compat issues.  See
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313646
>>>
>>
>> Ugh, yeah, in testing my patch I came across the same bug.
>>
>> So it appears the spec needs to be adjusted the other direction then.
>> It needs to define that readystatechange needs to fire in all cases
>> independent of the value of the asynchronous flag?
>>
>
> No. We don't want to fire any events *during* sync XHR processing.
>

I would definitely prefer not to on philosophical grounds, but I think it's
required for compatibility and that trumps theoretical purity.  The spec
should document reality.

- James


>
>
> -Olli
>
>
>
>> / Jonas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 22:03:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT