W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:54:43 +0200
To: public-webapps@w3.org, "Cyril Concolato" <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
Message-ID: <op.v0a11hsu64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200, Cyril Concolato  
<cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
> The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It  
> starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it  
> should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now it  
> seems to end at "letter" ?) and then add the example. Also add "to"  
> before "prefix" and "start".

Fair enough, I dropped it. Progress Events is so small anyway and the  
specification it depends upon (DOM Core) already has clearer text on  
extensibility.


>> There are no requirements.
>
> When reading that: "The editor is encouraged to define it in a way  
> consistent with this", it did not seem so.

Well there are no specific requirements. If other editors do it wrong that  
will be pointed out, but since use can vary wildly I doubt that will  
happen much.


>> Because it very much depends on the context.
>
> Example ?

Cross-origin XMLHttpRequest versus same-origin XMLHttpRequest versus the  
HTML application cache feature.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:55:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT