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

Re: [FileAPI] FileReader.abort() and File[Saver|Writer].abort have different behaviors

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:09:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CABirCh-Gj9tHGm=bO99HrfEa3cracp_FrycKatLBhoedZ1X2PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric U <ericu@google.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, arun@mozilla.com, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Eric U <ericu@google.com> wrote:

> If we want the file specs to match the XHR spec, then we can just
> leave this as it is in File Reader, and I'll match it in File Writer.
> Recursion depth limit is up to the UA to set.  But I look forward to
> hearing what Anne has to say about it before we settle on copying it.
>

In my opinion, providing the "no nesting" guarantee is more useful than
being consistent with XHR, if all new APIs provide it.

This sort of thing seems obviously useful:

function showActivity(obj)
{
    obj.addEventHandler("loadstart", function() { div.hidden = false; },
false);
    obj.addEventHandler("loadend", function() { div.hidden = true; },
false);
}

With the currently specced behavior, this doesn't work--the div would end up
hidden when it should be shown.  You shouldn't have to care how other code
is triggering reads to do something this simple.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 22:09:45 GMT

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