- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:39:34 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> > There are *a lot* of features about XHR that I would like people to use in > the end. onreadystatechange would be nice to get people off of entierly > for example since having separate onload, onprogress and onerror is a lot > easier to use. I think onprogress is useful and can be added without effecting anything else - ie an an author won't change their code for implementations without an onprogress, the readyState=4 will still exist where the we're done is finished. onload and onerror though aren't so useful, because all scripts will still have to treat the readyState=4 situation, so there's little benefit to authors to have them defined here, it would just lead to more duplicated code. >> 2. Better for new implementations. > > I can agree to that. Well, it means new implementations have to implement more stuff, despite the fact that authors will be continuing to author to the old format. I'd like to see changes that can't realistically be used deferred to a later specification, where the new neater methods are combined with new functionality. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Saturday, 8 April 2006 11:40:55 UTC